The Energy of the Generation
After the nuclear incidents in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it has created a worldwide panic over the usage of nuclear power. Due to the perceived risks, people were skeptical about whether the use of nuclear power was a reasonable option for producing energy. As a result, countries are resorting to renewable sources such as solar power, wind energy, hydropower, etc. It became an alternative to nuclear energy. Despite the nuclear incidents, nuclear power has greatly contributed to the electricity and it should not be destroyed. The two articles stated below demonstrate that there has been much controversy over what energy source is superior.
In “The Steady Decline of the Nuclear Energy Industry,” Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt, and Julie Hazemann, who are all independent consultants on international energy issues, argue that nuclear industry is falling into a recession and that it is gradually going to be replaced by renewable energy. In contrast, Mario Salazar, an environmental engineer and author of “Nuclear Power: The Case for a Safe, Alternative Energy Source,” states that people have exaggerated the risks of nuclear power and describes how other energy sources are far more fatal. He tries to appeal to the audience by not comparing nuclear to renewable, but by providing how nuclear is not actually as harmful as people label it to be. Although the articles having opposing views, both positions share a common ground, which is to find an energy source that is efficient, harmless, and economical. Both articles favor that the energy source should be high in effectiveness. As a result of the decline in the development of nuclear power, Schneider, Froggatt, and Hazemann depict how nuclear energy “cannot keep up with the pace of its renewable energy competitors” (Scheider 1). The productions of renewable machines are advancing, whereas nuclear plants are diminishing. Moreover, they state that “the share of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear coming on line” (Scheider 1). Prominently, there is no doubt that the renewables will be the choice of the next generation. During the generation of renewables, we will be able to determine whether it is a more reliable source than nuclear. However, Salazar accentuates that nuclear power is not as bad as fossil fuels because it is environmentally viable, and it produces less carbon dioxide emission. If nuclear energy plants continue to operate safely, they will be able to outweigh fossil fuel use. As of today, nuclear power is essential because it “provides 19% of our base load electricity” (DeRosa). Because it contains a great portion of the electricity, nuclear energy proves to be an effective energy source. Since the era of the nuclear disasters, people are disgusted by nuclear waste and conclude that they do not want to live in fear of a nuclear plant contaminating …show more content…
In 1986, an explosion of a nuclear power station occurred in Chernobyl, killing tens of thousands of people and leaving more than 2.5 million people with heath problems. Due to exposure of radioactive waste, people were slowly decaying. The event alerted many throughout the world, and it eventually triggered fear of using nuclear power. Even though many have died in the incident, Mario Salazar writes about how nuclear power is not as dangerous as other resources. He explains that people have exaggerated the threat of nuclear energy, when in actuality, fossil fuels and petrochemical industries are killing an endless amount of people. Everyday, we are bombarded with unfortunate news regarding the deaths from “gas explosions, car fires, and many other accidents in which fossil fuels were at least contributors” (Salazar 1). Yet, people neglect to see that nuclear energy is actually safer than other …show more content…
After the nuclear bombing of Fukushima, there was an “international economic crisis” (Schneider 2). The first article bashes on nuclear energy, and demonstrates that the European Pressurized Reactor was four years behind schedule; moreover, they exceeded their budget by 90 percent and wasted more than 8.2 billion dollars. On the other hand, “Renewable energy is dependent on technology as a means for making it accessible… makes it extremely expensive and is attached to very high costs” (Editor). In comparison, nuclear energy does not depend on technology as much, enabling it to be the cheaper
After the nuclear incidents in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it has created a worldwide panic over the usage of nuclear power. Due to the perceived risks, people were skeptical about whether the use of nuclear power was a reasonable option for producing energy. As a result, countries are resorting to renewable sources such as solar power, wind energy, hydropower, etc. It became an alternative to nuclear energy. Despite the nuclear incidents, nuclear power has greatly contributed to the electricity and it should not be destroyed. The two articles stated below demonstrate that there has been much controversy over what energy source is superior.
In “The Steady Decline of the Nuclear Energy Industry,” Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt, and Julie Hazemann, who are all independent consultants on international energy issues, argue that nuclear industry is falling into a recession and that it is gradually going to be replaced by renewable energy. In contrast, Mario Salazar, an environmental engineer and author of “Nuclear Power: The Case for a Safe, Alternative Energy Source,” states that people have exaggerated the risks of nuclear power and describes how other energy sources are far more fatal. He tries to appeal to the audience by not comparing nuclear to renewable, but by providing how nuclear is not actually as harmful as people label it to be. Although the articles having opposing views, both positions share a common ground, which is to find an energy source that is efficient, harmless, and economical. Both articles favor that the energy source should be high in effectiveness. As a result of the decline in the development of nuclear power, Schneider, Froggatt, and Hazemann depict how nuclear energy “cannot keep up with the pace of its renewable energy competitors” (Scheider 1). The productions of renewable machines are advancing, whereas nuclear plants are diminishing. Moreover, they state that “the share of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear coming on line” (Scheider 1). Prominently, there is no doubt that the renewables will be the choice of the next generation. During the generation of renewables, we will be able to determine whether it is a more reliable source than nuclear. However, Salazar accentuates that nuclear power is not as bad as fossil fuels because it is environmentally viable, and it produces less carbon dioxide emission. If nuclear energy plants continue to operate safely, they will be able to outweigh fossil fuel use. As of today, nuclear power is essential because it “provides 19% of our base load electricity” (DeRosa). Because it contains a great portion of the electricity, nuclear energy proves to be an effective energy source. Since the era of the nuclear disasters, people are disgusted by nuclear waste and conclude that they do not want to live in fear of a nuclear plant contaminating …show more content…
In 1986, an explosion of a nuclear power station occurred in Chernobyl, killing tens of thousands of people and leaving more than 2.5 million people with heath problems. Due to exposure of radioactive waste, people were slowly decaying. The event alerted many throughout the world, and it eventually triggered fear of using nuclear power. Even though many have died in the incident, Mario Salazar writes about how nuclear power is not as dangerous as other resources. He explains that people have exaggerated the threat of nuclear energy, when in actuality, fossil fuels and petrochemical industries are killing an endless amount of people. Everyday, we are bombarded with unfortunate news regarding the deaths from “gas explosions, car fires, and many other accidents in which fossil fuels were at least contributors” (Salazar 1). Yet, people neglect to see that nuclear energy is actually safer than other …show more content…
After the nuclear bombing of Fukushima, there was an “international economic crisis” (Schneider 2). The first article bashes on nuclear energy, and demonstrates that the European Pressurized Reactor was four years behind schedule; moreover, they exceeded their budget by 90 percent and wasted more than 8.2 billion dollars. On the other hand, “Renewable energy is dependent on technology as a means for making it accessible… makes it extremely expensive and is attached to very high costs” (Editor). In comparison, nuclear energy does not depend on technology as much, enabling it to be the cheaper