By Tony Shin
As human population is increasing, factories had to generate a lot more energy for everyone to access. Electricity is one of them. In modern day, people are trying to use more renewable energy(solar, wind, and water etc) than the fossil fuels in order to reduce carbon emissions. But the problem is, they’re expensive and not efficient. In fact, 85% of the world’s electricity is provided by non-renewable energy: the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and gas, which is a cheap and lot more efficient than renewable energy, but it also creates tremendous amount of greenhouse gases.
Generally, people think that nuclear energy is one of the dangerous non-renewable energy and emits lot of greenhouse gases. Using nuclear energy is indeed risky, however, nuclear energy itself is clean and renewable. Nuclear energy generates significant amount of electricity at the lowest cost. In fact, Chinese government advocated nuclear plants to prevent air pollution, while generating electricity in a cheap and efficient way. However back then, China’s 69% of electricity has been produced by fossil fuels and coals, which emitted greenhouse gases. As a result, the State Council warned China to reduce the carbon emissions 40 ~ 45%. Unfortunately, Chinese government couldn’t control the carbon emissions, so they decided to utilize nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions, while generating a lot of electricity.
However, there’s one problem that we all know about nuclear energy: radioactive waste. Even though it’s cheap to generate electricity with nuclear energy, the cost of disposing radioactive waste is complex and expensive. Since it’s mostly composed with Cesium, it can lead to any type of cancer or instant death. Not only workers have to deal with radioactive waste but also be generous with their factories. In 1986, 4 nuclear plants in Chernobyl, Ukraine were exploded because due to the impaired reactor design that operated by unprofessional personnel. As a result, 54 employees were killed by radiation poisoning and made Chernobyl uninhabitable for 20,000 years , but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. In 2011, a nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan was caused by a tsunami. During the major earthquake, a 15-meter tsunami completely devastated the power supply, which deactivated the cooling system that cools down 3 nuclear reactors. As a result, all 3 cores were melted and collapsed, killing over 2000 people, and also left Fukushima uninhabitable.
In fact, many countries are still using nuclear energy to generate electricity. However, some western countries, Germany and France, are trying to shut down all of their nuclear power plants. Although Germany’s population is slowly increasing, India is struggling to shut down their nuclear power plants because doing so can cause blackouts and hurt the India economy. Nevertheless, after Fukushima, many countries stop building more nuclear power plants, while China persists to build more.
Questions:
1. How effective is the Chinese government’s decision to build more nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions?
2. Do you think nuclear energy can solve the carbon emission problem? Why or why not?
3. Do you think nuclear energy beneficial to the environment?
Sources:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/BENEFITS-of-NUCLEAR.pdf
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx
27 comments:
The Chinese's government decision to build more nuclear power plants may be effective, but there is a huge price to pay in order to build these power plants because they are very costly to build, and they generate large amounts of waste. I think nuclear energy could be an alternative solution to decrease carbon emission; however, the carbon emission issue is a very large issue, so I do not think that nuclear power plants could all together solve the CO2 emission problem. Nevertheless, nuclear energy could help decrease CO2 in the atmosphere. I do not think nuclear energy is beneficial to the environment because nuclear power plants also produce waste, and the build-up of the waste is harmful to the environment.
I think nuclear energy can solve the carbon emission problem, but it can also bring up other problems to the table such as the radioactive waste to the environment. I do think nuclear energy benefits the environment in some way but at the same times provides risks harming both animals and humans in the process of solving the problem of carbon emission.
I think it is wonderful that administrations are trying to find alternative ways to producing energy, aside from fossil fuels. However, I don't believe there has been enough research done/data accumulated to know for sure what the harmful side effects of such nuclear plants can be. Although this is step in the right direction, I still think there is some work that needs to be done to ensure the complete safety of nuclear plants before their widespread use as a means to produce energy.
The Chinese government’s decision to build more nuclear power plants is an okay decision. It helps in reducing carbon emissions, so that’s a plus. But radioactive waste is a huge problem that should be considered. I don’t think that nuclear energy can solve the carbon emission problem because if we completely go to nuclear energy, we have to be extremely careful about where to place the plants because accidents, like in Fukushima, can happen any time. Furthermore, radioactive waste poses an enormous health problem for all living things, so unless a more efficient and less expensive way to dispose of the waste, I don’t think switching over to nuclear energy is plausible. I think it is beneficial to the environment, but like other sources of clean energy(wind, solar, and water), it has its cons.
I don’t know if it is worth it to use power plants instead of other renewable resources like wind energy or using dams. Many people do not know the true dangers of the toxic by product that comes with using nuclear energy to produce electricity. So while it is quite clean and may cut down carbon emissions, especially in such a polluted country like China, it still has a dangerous byproduct that could possibly even cause worse outcomes than having carbon emissions. In addition, the government could invest in using wind turbines to capture wind energy or other forms of renewable resources that don’t have as bad byproducts.
In regards to effectiveness the Chinese governments move is great but we always have to take into account the byproducts of something “effective” in this case radioactive waste. I don’t think it will solve the problem but I do think It can help reduce it. A true solution would be one that has minimal negative feedback that of which nuclear energy has a lot of. In regards to decreasing carbon emissions yes, but in regards to its byproducts not at all.
I think that the Chinese government’s decision was good because it focused on reducing carbon emissions, but it also had unintended consequences that have to be taken into consideration. It was a good idea and a step in the right direction, but because the byproducts are so dangerous, it is not realistic to think it will solve the carbon emission problem, and nuclear power plants should not become widespread until safety is ensured. The best thing governments can do to help the environment is focus on renewable, sustainable energy sources.
I think the Chinese governments division to build more nuclear power plants was good, but there is some bad parts about it because it will cost a lot and because they could have used renewable resources. I don’t think nuclear energy can solve the carbon emission problem because when one thing gets solved something else can happen and its too risky. The carbon emission is also a big issue, so I don’t think the whole nuclear power plant will solve stuff. I think the nuclear energy is beneficial to the environment because it is one of the most environmentally friendly resources. It doesn’t generate greenhouse gases.
I’m not sure how effective the Chinese governments decision is to build more nuclear power plants because they are expensive, produce waste, and even though they may reduce carbon emissions it will be difficult to do so. China is still very populated and their is lots of pollution there. I don’t think it will solve the carbon emission problem but instead can create new ones. It is dangerous and there have been incidents in the past. I think it is beneficial to the environment because it doesn’t produce green house gases.
I think that the Chinese Governments decision to build more nuclear power plants is effective, but it is expensive and very complex. It also produces a lot of waste which is hard to get rid of. While the energy will be effective, it will have many consequences later down the road. I do not think that nuclear energy will solve the carbon emission problem because not enough countries are using this at a mass rate to outweigh the many pollutants that are causing carbon emission. I think that nuclear energy is efficient to the environment because it does not produce greenhouse gases and even though it is only used by few, it is still preventing a little but of carbon emission form being realized into the atmosphere, which helps our environment as well.
The Chinese government's decision to build more nuclear power plants puts many of their citizens at risk with all the radioactive waste it has. Nuclear energy is beneficial to the environment in that it is renewable and generates electricity at a low cost.
I feel that this may be the wrong decision to make as it jeopardizes so many innocent lives. We should learn from past disasters and try to regulate and limit ourselves instead of attempting to boost the economy. And although it is an alternative for fossil fuels and non renewable resources, nuclear energy may be just as dangerous if not more, given precedented accidents and disasters.
I can definitely see the argument that it endangers lives, but I also can definitely argue its benefits. I think that there are so many solutions for cleans energy already that maybe this one should still be used but just not as commonly as the other uses. I think we should use it for its effectiveness but hydro power is an option and so is solar and both are less dangerous.
I think nuclear energy can be part of the solution to decrease carbon emission, but I believe that more needs to be done to decrease the amount of radioactive waste and to make it less risky. The consequences of mismanagement of nuclear power plants is still too high, and until a permanent solution is found I don’t think that many people such as my self will be ready to fully support nuclear energy as the best renewable resource.
While I do think China's building of nuclear energy will be effective, and a clean replacement to fossil fuels, the cost of disposing the waste is high. Too many nuclear plants means a ton of radioactive waste, that can have devastating consequences for humans and human health. While I do think nuclear energy is does help fix the carbon emissions problem, it is almost like fixing one problem by replacing it with another problem. And while nuclear energy stops the harm created by fossil fuels, the radioactive waste and the dangers that failed plants create mean that we should proceed with high levels of caution.
I believe nuclear power plant will lead to a more sustainable future but more research and development has to be done before nuclear energy can truly be sustainable. With currently technologies, the development of such plants is expensive and causes lots of pollution via the construction process. It is surely a beneficial technology to the environment but it has not yet come to the point where it can be used widely to fix the coming environmental problems. Furthermore, the large amounts of nuclear waste from such plants need to be dealt with in more safe and efficient ways. Hopefully, the coming years will see various innovations in this field such that nuclear power can be considered a truly sustainable source of energy and can be implemented all over the world.
I think that China’s use of nuclear energy is effective, but it comes at a steep price. Not only is it more expensive than the typical fossil fuels, but it is also extremely dangerous. I think that over time nuclear emission could solve the amount of carbon being admitted into the air. But, without all countries onboard, it will not be very effective and might not even show difference. I do not think that nuclear energy is beneficial to the environment. The waste from nuclear emission could harm plants and animals around the world, which is extremely harmful and could cause an imbalance in our ecosystems.
May there be no mistake: Nuclear force plants can create colossal measures of sans carbon power. A quick increment in atomic vitality would cut discharges from the force part. Indeed, even today, France's carbon thickness—its carbon discharges per capita—ranks well underneath that of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as indicated by the Global Carbon Atlas. In any case, you can't place an atomic reactor in a tractor-trailer or a steel plant. Atomic can just decrease discharges from the force segment, and the vitality framework is greater than just power.
China's decision to build nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions has been effective. I think nuclear energy is the way to go to solve the carbon emissions problem. Unfortunately, we have to construct a nuclear energy plant in order to produce this type of energy. This construction will cause pollution, and hurt the atmosphere.
I think chinas descision to build nuclear plants is effective in solving the problem it was designed to fix. Although this is fixing the issue, it is not a sustainable practice because it produces another harmful side effect. Nuclear waste is not beneficial to the environment and is in the long run going to cause another issue for us to have to fix.
The Chinese Government's new decision to build Nuclear plants rather than other sources of energy that produce carbon dioxide is very effective in the direction that it does not produce a lot of carbon emissions, however, it does produce harmful radioactive wastes that cannot be disposed of properly. I believe nuclear energy is better for the environment than fossil fuels due to the massive decrease in carbon emissions, which can directly harm the environment as it feeds into climate change. On the other hand, nuclear waste has its downsides if it is not properly sealed and disposed of.
The Chinese government's decision to build more nuclear power plants is effective because it serves for multiple purposes. For example, you can use it for electricity. and it is cheap to acquire I don't think that nuclear energy will solve the problem completely as there should be other measure put in place which also reduce carbon emissions. Since nuclear energy disposes of radioactive waste, there will be other harmful chemicals entering the atmosphere. Nuclear waste is not too beneficial to the environment because of its harmful disposal an its chemical emissions.
Building nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions is an effective decision if done correctly. Nuclear plants are capable of reducing carbon emissions but also has the capability of causing more problems such as an excess of radioactive waste. If there is a clean and efficient way of disposing of this waste I do think that nuclear energy can solve the carbon emission problem as it is the most powerful renewable resource.
The Chinese government increasing its number of nuclear power plants should likely help to cut down on its real ease of carbon emissions. While I do think that more needs to be done in order to completely stop carbon emissions, nuclear energy will certainly help in achieving that overall goal. I believe that once people figure out how to effectively and cleanly dispose of nuclear waste that nuclear energy will become a tremendous benefit to the overall health of the environment due to it being a renewable, clean source of energy.
I think nuclear energy can help lower carbon emissions and more nuclear power plants will go a long way towards cutting down on carbon emissions. I think its beneficial to the environment in terms of reducing primary pollutants in the atmosphere, it can have potentially dangerous outcomes if these nuclear facilities and the waste they generate are not maintained properly.
I do in fact, believe that using nuclear energy will help reduce carbon emissions, however, I also do believe that there is a risk of producing harmful nuclear waste. Ultimately, I think that if humans find a way to reduce the radioactive waste produced, in the process of producing nuclear energy, nuclear power will be a great alternative source of energy.
Dang I mean nuclear energy seems pretty scary if you ask me. If somehow there was a way to get energy from nuclear plants without all the toxic waste and stuff then maybe that would be a good idea but I feel like that’s probably not gonna happen any time soon. Without the devastating effects of like nuclear disasters I’d say that nuclear energy could be good for the environment. But like right now it just seems too risky and scary!!
Post a Comment