Nuclear energy by many associated with Chernobyl or Fukushima does not sound like a safe low emission energy source. However, let me start by debunking this myth by explaining two major incidents leading to such beliefs. In the Fukushima “nuclear disaster” the reactor has neither harmed nor killed anybody. All the deaths and tragedies were caused by the Tsunami. Two factory workers have drowned on its premises but it was not connected to nuclear power. Currently, it is much safer to live in the area of Fukushima than in e.g. Tokyo where polluted air has much worse effects on humans’ life. When it comes to Chernobyl it was indeed a failure of the nuclear reactor, but modern nuclear energy plants are nothing alike. In nowadays nuclear reactor chances of such events occurring almost do not exist. I hope that dispels one’s radiophobia.
The current low emission energy such as wind turbines, solar panels, biomass burning cannot be described as flawless. Firstly it requires a lot of space, planting energy plants, building wind turbines, and placing solar panels do not have a high energy density, which is why we need a lot of them. The additional issue concerning space is that local communities do not want them in their neighborhood. They prefer the plain look of nature. Moreover, by doing so we put more pressure and cause a bigger impact on nature because it needs to provide us energy.
The biggest advantage of nuclear power is undeniably its energy density. Atoms are a few million times denser than the most common biomass; wood. Just to prove a “nuclear energy plant located on a couple of hectares is capable of producing more energy than 2/3 of wind turbines in Denmark” (Błażowski, 2021). This country is known for having one of the greatest percentages of energy produced by wind turbines; “47%” (Wikipedia, 2021). When it comes to nuclear waste which is a matter that probably worries many people. It is located in save glass containers in environments that were and will be stable for millions of years. On top of that, there is not much stuff to store e.g. “All the fuel needed to supply all nuclear plants in Switzerland is located in half of the industrial warehouse. It is nothing compared to the heaps of coal” (Błażowski, 2021)
In conclusion, low emission energy sources which are relying on nature; wind turbines solar panels, or biomass are not as good as they seem to be. They put additional pressure on the environment and use plenty of space. The question needs to be asked: Do we want to live in a world surrounded by massive fields visible almost everywhere of wind turbines and solar panels? On the other hand, we have a solution that allows us to produce big quantities of clear decarbonized energy in relatively extremely small plants and with very little/almost no waste.
Bibliography:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark last access 10:00 PM 08.11.2021
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoEFvvHRCU&t=2085s last access 10:00 PM 08.11.2021
- https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/wind-solar-renewable-energy-needs/ last access 7:00 PM 06.11.2021 (graphic 1)
I completely agree that nuclear power plants are our future. They are much more efficient than ordinary ecological power plants, not to mention traditional power plants. Moreover, they are cleaner, do not produce as much waste and do not require as much space to operate efficiently. Admittedly they are more expensive to maintain. Nevertheless, the biggest problem in launching such power plants will be convincing people that they are really safe. This problem is caused by misconceptions about two incidents (which were not caused by nuclear power plants) that happened in the past. It would be necessary to start with educating people in this field, because most of them believe in myths and not in facts that took place
As we are required to develop critical thinking, I can not say that I completely agree with everything. The problem of space which is occupied by wind turbines can be overcome by building so called turning plantations in rural areas or even in the water on the shallows (applied in the UK). What concerns nuclear energy, half of European countries have decided not to use it ever because of a potential danger after Chernobyl disaster, because even though the chance of disaster is miserable, a lot of people may die as a consequence. I believe that the most urgent problem is replacing non-ecological energy(coal and wood) which is still widely used in countries with enormous population(China and India) with any environmentally-friendly substitutes, no matter if it would be solar, wind, or nuclear energy.