Nuclear Energy Pros And Cons

1562 Words7 Pages
Fossil fuels have done its damage over the decades of its continuous use, causing widespread destruction to every corner of the globe. The only way to reverse this effect is to discover a completely new avenue of energy for long term use. Nuclear energy is one of the cleaner alternatives to this, which will help fix the damage done over a long period of time. However, the use of this kind of energy has been severely affected due to differences between the public, the government, and scientists, with effects such as regulation, unknown effects on daily life, and the environment, and even the viability of it in the future. The vast possibilities of the unknown makes people reluctant in adopting something that’s new, and replacing something that…show more content…
They are not wrong; the CO2 emissions are still present, however, governments still put in place numerous pages worth of regulations and restrictions regarding the long term operation and use of nuclear power. These limitations that are implemented severely deters the spread of nuclear power plants around the nation, which would help reduce future pollution within the United States. Nuclear plants do occupy massive amounts of space for proper operation, and with that used up space leads to more nuclear waste in the area. They also have a certain lifespan for operation until they can no longer be used anymore, which will eventually lead to a useless and uninhabitable area until the area is cleaned up. Just as Antoine Picon described with landscapes that are composed of ruin and rust when they used to be bustling cities chock full of technologies and people, nuclear power plants, when retired after supplying millions of people with clean energy, will slowly degrade and no longer become a part of the landscape. They will never become useful and fully operational until its replacement, but will instead become the landscape with towering cooling towers and other technologies that are…show more content…
Purveyors of existing energy sources that are powering our nation’s schools, neighborhoods, businesses, facilities, industries, and other infrastructures are opposing new, greener alternatives of power simply due to a loss of business for an already declining fossil fuel and coal industry. Nevertheless, John Levendis, professor of economics, Walter Block, economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist, and Joseph Morrel believe that there should be an “even playing field” for all energy sources, both existing and future innovations. All energy sources that come into existence should be able to pay and fend for themselves and strive to prosper in the free market of society to become a major supplier of energy for an area, nation, or the entire world, or face destruction and obsolescence due to declining profits, public response, and possible government control. They argue that this is the only way to be fair and have healthy competition. Competition is beneficial for the well-being of our society both socially and economically, since high profile rivalries between one another will lead to better technologies, which will most likely lead to a global effort for a heightened level of environmental consciousness and a slowdown of global warming. A decline in climate change will allow the recovery of the nature that we disrupted along with the spaces that we occupied

More about Nuclear Energy Pros And Cons

Open Document