Nuclear Energy: A controversial Subject

by filip_bec on November 20, 2013 - 11:08am

Nuclear energy is a very delicate topic in our society because of its controversial aspect. For every pro you can find, there will always be a con. Personally, I find that positive aspects of nuclear power outweigh the negative aspects. I will prove my thesis by treating the environmental, economic and health issues surrounding the nuclear energy.

First of all, nuclear energy has a positive impact on the environmental issues we are presently overcoming. It produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. From all the energy sources, it is the only that is emission-free. Also, the power plants take less space than other energy sources. For the equivalent of 1000 megawatt nuclear plant, a solar park would have to be larger than 35,000 acres.

Secondly, energy has positive benefits on the economic aspect. It is low on fuel cost, because it requires a little amount of uranium to produce tons of energy. Moreover, nuclear reactors provide base-load power and are available 90% of the time. The amount of money to spend on its preservation is minimal.

Finally, nuclear energy has no negative influence on heath of people. Far fewer fatalities occurred in the civilian nuclear power industry in half a century than occurred in any year in the fossil fuel industries. In this period of time, we count the two biggest disasters of nuclear power. Also, a moderate amount of radiation is natural and beneficial to life. In fact, radiation has been bathing our environment since the first days of our planet. Most people are even unaware that our body itself is radioactive.

To conclude, I think the positive aspects are strong and prove that nuclear energy could be a potential source in many countries. 


To begin, the reason I am giving feedback on this abstract article is because it is a complete new field of information that I have never explored and learned about before. Therefore it is always interesting to discover something new and to expand the knowledge you have about different topics. First of all, during the reading of the article, I am led to believe that these are reasonable arguments, however what are these positive effects compared to? What are these negative aspects that the positive aspects overweigh? Besides this point, I believe insightful information has been provided and the right level of vocabulary is used to allow the readers to get an extensive understanding on the topic. In addition, based on my personal perspective on this topic, the interpretation I inquire after reading this abstract post is that if it is more positive for the environment because it is emission-free, as well as having more energy given out with less resource needed and the health of the population is not effected what so ever, then why haven’t we been using this resource? This information is hard to believe unless there is a comparison made between the pros and cons. Next, I have to admit that u have never really thought about this topic, and how we get our energy from because I didn’t believe it was necessary to understand, however through this article if it is emphasized that there should be at least a base of information then it will in fact push people to try and understand more and to go and research a little bit more about the topic. For example, as you may want to include to your essay, I just researched that Quebec uses hydro-energy to provide electricity to many homes, however that it is not as “green” as most of the population may believe. This can help you work towards the explanation that you want to provide that will strengthen your argument.

I disagree with this article. I feel that clean coal will be our energy source of choice in this country. I agree with your statistics about the properties that nuclear power plants possess. Unfortunately, because of the inexcusable manner in which Japan is handling its nuclear waste problem i do not feel that this is the right choice for the future of our planet. There are other countries with questionable political ethics that I feel could have the same problem occur. I would hope that our country would take care of a similar nuclear spill much more effectively but i fear that we are playing a dangerous game of numbers in relying on nuclear energy. As for the case of clean coal energy, let me start by clarifying that in this country we possess hundreds of years worth of energy in coal. Although the process of mining coal is very harmful to the environment its impact does not compare to the harmful effects of nuclear waste. The problem up to this point with the idea of clean coal is that we cannot remove the carbon from the emissions of the coal burning process. The other harmful metals such as cadmium lead and manganese are all now removed from the smoke before the coal emissions leave the plant. New technology is being developed however, that makes it possible to take and store co2 emissions. Obviously this technology has not been perfected and marketed as of yet, but that time is not far off. Once we can remove these carbon emissions from the coal burning process the idea of clean coal will be recognized. Then we can rely on an energy source that we control domestically without the danger that nuclear power presents. Please do not take my comment offensively. I merely meant to provide an opinion based on my fears of nuclear power and my knowledge of new technology.

About the author