Nuclear power plants closure (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Class
Date
Nuclear Power Plants should be Banned Worldwide
Outline
Introduction:
Nature of nuclear power plant debate and thesis statement
Background
Body:
Advocates versus opponents
Disposal problem
Accident vulnerability
Insecurity threats
Cultural, technological and political pressure
Conclusion
Summary and thesis re-statement.
The enduring divergence over nuclear power and the dangers it poses is not new-in fact, the damaged Japanese Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant discussion is akin to arguments happening between the public, governmental agencies and scientists for decades. On one side, the nuclear power advocates argue that the nuclear power is the answer to “green” energy that does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere responsible for global warming. On the other side, nuclear power opponents argue that the nuclear power plants are a disaster in the waiting; that each power plant is a ticking bomb capable of killing millions of people as well as other organisms through radiation poisoning. Such plants can go off due to normal operations, terrorist attacks or natural disasters such as earthquakes. Even if they fail to go off they cost fortunes for maintenance and facilitate mass destruction bombs. This paper’s goal is to argue for the ban of nuclear power plants worldwide because of the threats they create to the global community.
Nuclear power development is not a new idea; it tracks back more than a century when scientists discovered the release of energy through nuclear fission. However, the penetration of nuclear power on the electricity market started in the 1950s with the attempts to find cheap, inexhaustible source of power. Even during this period, several dangers were faced. In 1979, the first ever accident in nuclear plant occurred at the Three Mile Island plant in the united states of America (Garrick and Robert 254), though it did not kill anyone, it entirely shook the industry. Another blow to the sector came in the year 1986 in Ukraine when a disaster happened in Chernobyl nuclear power plant; the effects were felt not only in Ukraine but also other parts of Europe recording losses of life (Lüsted 76).
Since then safety risks has characterized the debate on nuclear power development. The advocates hold that the nuclear energy production does not result into emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as other forms of energy developments such as coal do. They argue that due to longevity of radioactive uranium isotopes utilized in the production of nuclear power, the projects provides cheap “eternal” source of power. Conversely, the opponents argue that nuclear power development results into other forms of environmental pollution through radiation and contamination of food and water. More so, the project is not as cheap as it appears as radioactive materials take many years to decay fully making waste disposal cost higher. The following dangers also strengthen the opponents’ stand:
First, with the continuing establishment of more and more nuclear power plants across the globe, the space for disposal is bound to be a problem. This is because the growth rate of the human population is high while nuclear wastes take thousands of years to decay completely, 10,000 years as per the standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The future generations, even the current generation, are likely to suffer deteriorated health as the nuclear wastes are harmful to human life since they cause cancer. Thus, it is a time to ban nuclear power plants worldwide.
Second, despite high security standards, there is no 100% guarantee to build a safe plant. There are chances of accidents happening from normal operations, ignorance or natural disasters. For instance, the residents of a Vaucluse tourist destination, France were banned from fishing, swimming and drinking well-water due to water contamination caused by leaks from Bollene Tricastin nuclear power plant (Chrisafis). Also, the Fukushima disaster caused by an earthquake is another notable incident. Such happenings support the banning of nuclear plants since it is almost impossible to control nuclear accidents that cause huge losses of property and personal lives.
Third, nuclear power plants are a threat to global security for reasons; they facilitate making of nuclear bombs and can be targets of terrorists. No single group can be trusted with their word just as the most-trusted North Korean atheist communists did not keep their word of not making atomic bombs. The mass destruction of atomic/nuclear bombs does not need an emphasis drawing from the Hiroshima bombings which caused more than 230,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries. Worse, the effects of the bombs, sixty-five years ago, still afflict the survivors and their offspring (Fraser). An attack from terrorists such as the 9/11 attack on any nuclear plant will turn out disastrous than any other attack, thus, the ban of nuclear plants globally.
Fourth, the current technological, political ...