Jiahe plant, the countries that really rely on

Jiahe Wang
Samira Gaikwad
ESL 1080-003
Sept. 29, 2018
Summery Response First Draft
In the article “Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Power”, by Mark Lynas, shows that it is difficult and almost impossible to replace nuclear energy with other renewable and clean energy resources. The reason for that is because other renewable and clean energy resources can not supply enough energy as nuclear energy, and it will be impossible to fill the energy gap just by using other renewable and clean energy. On the other hand, in the second article “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?”, by Fred Pearce, published in the Yale Environment 360, shows that as the gas and other renewable energy’s price is getting cheaper and cheaper, the cost for building and maintaining nuclear power plants are getting more and more expensive. Even there are still countries trying to build more and more nuclear power plant, the countries that really rely on nuclear energy start to think shutting down and decreasing the number of nuclear power plant. In the third article, ” Decades After Bomb-making, the Radioactive Waste Remains Dangerous”, by Valerie Brown, shows that the nuclear waste is difficult to deal with even the operators and scientists done everything right. There could be potential explosion during cleaning due to new chemicals formed in every single procedure, and some of the chemicals are even unknown for scientists. Based on the three article, this essay will elucidate why people love nuclear energy, and at the same time, people fear and hate nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is a great clean energy resources due to there is no carbon dioxide gas produced while generating energy and it can produces large amount of energy that no other clean and renewable energy resources can compete with. The author states that there are no carbon dioxide gas produce at all in comparison with coal and biomass. It can also produce way more energy in comparison with solar and wind, which stated by the author in the article as well. Most people would agree with the author because people who interested in this topic would have done a lot of research about it. According to World Nuclear Association, France and the US are the two larges country that use nuclear energy as one of their main energy source for electricity, with 75% and 19% respectfully. Even though France is planning on shutting some of their reactors and planning on using more solar and wind turbine to generate electricity, due to the struggle of finding replacement of nuclear energy, the plan has been temporarily dropped. And the reason for the French government to drop the plan is because simply the solar panel and wind turbine can not generate enough electricity to fully replace nuclear energy. For the US, the government doesn’t seems to cut nuclear energy, but it doesn’t seem to interested in building new plant either, with only two plants in construction.
Government is also playing a important role on nuclear energy. As the reactors getting older and older, which significantly increased the risk of maintenance and the cost of maintenance, and gas and other renewable energy getting cheaper and cheaper, the governments start to re-think the future of nuclear energy and other renewable and clean energy. The author clearly stated in the article that major European countries that depends on nuclear energy start to planning shutting majority of their nuclear power plants. Except Britain, which the government still supporting nuclear energy and building more and more nuclear power plants. Majority of the people would agree with the author’s points because nuclear energy are either run by the government or support or funded by the government. The obvious example is China. China is one of the growing nuclear energy countries. Supported and funded by the government, it have a lot of advantages. It will have the most advanced technology (relatively) to build reactors and it doesn’t need to worry about running out of money. On the other hand, like Tokyo Electric Power Company, even though it’s running under company, the technology of nuclear reactor is support by the government.
Nuclear waste is the other concern that people have when we people think about nuclear energy. Nuclear waste is difficult to deal with due to large amount of radiation and extremely dangerous. Some of the chemicals have extremely long half life, which can be hundreds or even billions years. Storage is also a difficulty that people need to face. It can be put into a large metal container and monitored by people to make sure there is no leaking from the container. But the container also need to be replaced due to the nuclear waste could break the container. And all of the points about were all clearly stated by the author in the article. People will agree with the author’s points because it is the difficulty we have to think about when we talk about nuclear energy. The most common way to deal with nuclear waste is to put them in a big metal (mainly lead) containers and bury them deep under the ground. It is a solution but due the radioactive waste can destroy the container, the containers have to be replaced in a certain period of time, which increases the risk of chain reaction between the radioactive materials and even create a nuclear explosion. Also, while dealing with nuclear waste, it requires large amount of people to working near radioactive materials, which is inhumanity in some ways.
Lynas’ article shows that nuclear energy is a great energy source and can not be replaced due to the tremendous amount of energy it can provide. Pearce’s article shows that governments play a important role on nuclear energy, which they can decide if the nuclear energy in a country can be cut or staying alive an even growing. Brown’s article shows that nuclear waste is a difficulty that we have to deal and eventually overcome if nuclear energy is the future. All three authors have their own opinions on nuclear energy, with Lynas support the nuclear energy while Pearce and Brown showing the concern regarding on nuclear energy. But as for now and in general, there is not a lot of options for completely replacing nuclear energy.
Work Cited
Brown, Valerie. “Decades After Bomb-Making, the Radioactive Waste Remains Dangerous – The Crux.” D-Brief, 28 Sept. 2018, blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/28/isns-plutonium-nuclear-waste-hanford/.
Pearce, Fred. “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?” Yale E360, 15 May 2017, e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-nuclear-power-coming-to-an-end.
Pearce, Fred. “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?” Yale E360, 15 May 2017, e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-nuclear-power-coming-to-an-end.
Lynas, Mark. “Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Power.” New Statesman, 18 Sept. 2008, www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/09/nuclear-power-lynas-reactors.

Jiahe Wang
Samira Gaikwad
ESL 1080-003
Sept. 29, 2018
Summery Response First Draft
In the article “Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Power”, by Mark Lynas, shows that it is difficult and almost impossible to replace nuclear energy with other renewable and clean energy resources. The reason for that is because other renewable and clean energy resources can not supply enough energy as nuclear energy, and it will be impossible to fill the energy gap just by using other renewable and clean energy. On the other hand, in the second article “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?”, by Fred Pearce, published in the Yale Environment 360, shows that as the gas and other renewable energy’s price is getting cheaper and cheaper, the cost for building and maintaining nuclear power plants are getting more and more expensive. Even there are still countries trying to build more and more nuclear power plant, the countries that really rely on nuclear energy start to think shutting down and decreasing the number of nuclear power plant. In the third article, ” Decades After Bomb-making, the Radioactive Waste Remains Dangerous”, by Valerie Brown, shows that the nuclear waste is difficult to deal with even the operators and scientists done everything right. There could be potential explosion during cleaning due to new chemicals formed in every single procedure, and some of the chemicals are even unknown for scientists. Based on the three article, this essay will elucidate why people love nuclear energy, and at the same time, people fear and hate nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is a great clean energy resources due to there is no carbon dioxide gas produced while generating energy and it can produces large amount of energy that no other clean and renewable energy resources can compete with. The author states that there are no carbon dioxide gas produce at all in comparison with coal and biomass. It can also produce way more energy in comparison with solar and wind, which stated by the author in the article as well. Most people would agree with the author because people who interested in this topic would have done a lot of research about it. According to World Nuclear Association, France and the US are the two larges country that use nuclear energy as one of their main energy source for electricity, with 75% and 19% respectfully. Even though France is planning on shutting some of their reactors and planning on using more solar and wind turbine to generate electricity, due to the struggle of finding replacement of nuclear energy, the plan has been temporarily dropped. And the reason for the French government to drop the plan is because simply the solar panel and wind turbine can not generate enough electricity to fully replace nuclear energy. For the US, the government doesn’t seems to cut nuclear energy, but it doesn’t seem to interested in building new plant either, with only two plants in construction.
Government is also playing a important role on nuclear energy. As the reactors getting older and older, which significantly increased the risk of maintenance and the cost of maintenance, and gas and other renewable energy getting cheaper and cheaper, the governments start to re-think the future of nuclear energy and other renewable and clean energy. The author clearly stated in the article that major European countries that depends on nuclear energy start to planning shutting majority of their nuclear power plants. Except Britain, which the government still supporting nuclear energy and building more and more nuclear power plants. Majority of the people would agree with the author’s points because nuclear energy are either run by the government or support or funded by the government. The obvious example is China. China is one of the growing nuclear energy countries. Supported and funded by the government, it have a lot of advantages. It will have the most advanced technology (relatively) to build reactors and it doesn’t need to worry about running out of money. On the other hand, like Tokyo Electric Power Company, even though it’s running under company, the technology of nuclear reactor is support by the government.
Nuclear waste is the other concern that people have when we people think about nuclear energy. Nuclear waste is difficult to deal with due to large amount of radiation and extremely dangerous. Some of the chemicals have extremely long half life, which can be hundreds or even billions years. Storage is also a difficulty that people need to face. It can be put into a large metal container and monitored by people to make sure there is no leaking from the container. But the container also need to be replaced due to the nuclear waste could break the container. And all of the points about were all clearly stated by the author in the article. People will agree with the author’s points because it is the difficulty we have to think about when we talk about nuclear energy. The most common way to deal with nuclear waste is to put them in a big metal (mainly lead) containers and bury them deep under the ground. It is a solution but due the radioactive waste can destroy the container, the containers have to be replaced in a certain period of time, which increases the risk of chain reaction between the radioactive materials and even create a nuclear explosion. Also, while dealing with nuclear waste, it requires large amount of people to working near radioactive materials, which is inhumanity in some ways.
Lynas’ article shows that nuclear energy is a great energy source and can not be replaced due to the tremendous amount of energy it can provide. Pearce’s article shows that governments play a important role on nuclear energy, which they can decide if the nuclear energy in a country can be cut or staying alive an even growing. Brown’s article shows that nuclear waste is a difficulty that we have to deal and eventually overcome if nuclear energy is the future. All three authors have their own opinions on nuclear energy, with Lynas support the nuclear energy while Pearce and Brown showing the concern regarding on nuclear energy. But as for now and in general, there is not a lot of options for completely replacing nuclear energy.
Work Cited
Brown, Valerie. “Decades After Bomb-Making, the Radioactive Waste Remains Dangerous – The Crux.” D-Brief, 28 Sept. 2018, blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/28/isns-plutonium-nuclear-waste-hanford/.
Pearce, Fred. “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?” Yale E360, 15 May 2017, e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-nuclear-power-coming-to-an-end.
Pearce, Fred. “Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End?” Yale E360, 15 May 2017, e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-nuclear-power-coming-to-an-end.
Lynas, Mark. “Why Greens Must Learn to Love Nuclear Power.” New Statesman, 18 Sept. 2008, www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/09/nuclear-power-lynas-reactors.

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out