Nuclear Power Plants

The term a nuclear plant in the simplest and most basic sense refers to the a thermal power station which has a centrally placed nuclear reactor for the purpose of generating heat, electricity and energy by extension. The initial and original plan of the plants was to generate energy since using fuel to do the same grew expensive relative to the nuclear plants. Over the years however, nations with the plants have diversified their use of the nuclear plants to skew them to nuclear weapons. It is needless to stress and mention the dangers that nuclear weapon pose to the human race. This essay will thus discuss in details and principles, the advantages and disadvantages relative to banning of all nuclear plants worldwide.

To begin with, there is a school of thought which stipulates that nuclear plants ought not to be banned because of the outright benefits that it presents to the world. Firstly, is the aspect of security and safety of a nuclear plant? If under any circumstances or issue, there is a mechanical fault of whichever sought and the effects and the dangers that such an eventuality would pose are dire. It would take approximately forty thousand for the world to fully recover from the effects of the nuclear materials proliferating the environment (Chiras, 9). This is to say that it would take four time human life or the world to overcome the negative effects. This logic stems from the fact that nuclear energy has so far radiated the earth, killed more people than any other lethal substance on earth. Thus, there is benefit of keeping the nuclear power plants with full knowledge of the extremities that may accrue under such an eventuality.

A practical case and instance is under during the World War when the full effects of nuclear energy or weapon was directed towards Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Up until this present day and age, subsequent generations are still reeling from the negative effects that were posed by the bombing of the places. Thus, it is counter-productive to leave such huge amount of power and authority under influence of human beings because when things go wrong such as during times of war, there would be o guarantee that a nation would not use them.

Similarly, there is no guarantee that the plants would be safe under the control and management of human beings. An error, technical mistake, natural disaster or any unforeseen and unexpected human calamity may be devastating. It is imperative and important to and record that if there is any accident either a natural disaster such as an earthquake and then the plants explode, the effects would be counted in terms of number of human lives lost. Thus, the prospects of cheaper energy is in no way worth risking the lives of human beings, which would be affected by radiation. On the contrary it would be better if the states and nations invested in alternative safer modes and means of power plants and energy sources.

Subsequently, there are prospects and chances that human error may occur because of the technical and mechanical aspects that are involved. Naturally, there ought to be proper means and ways of correcting a human error in any circumstance without involving loss of life or loss of any sort within the global and human spectrum. This logic does not however hold as far as nuclear plants, reactors and energy is concerned (Rosenthal, 6). Whenever there is a mishap of whichever sort, the costs and causalities of the breakdown (of the nuclear plant), would be measured by environmental and human life loss. A case in point is the Fukushima incident which is still fresh in the memories of the world. Thus, nuclear plants ought to be banned because all the benefits that it may offer and present to the world do not in any way compare to the effects it would have on humanity.

On the contrary, there is a school for thought and proponents who support nuclear plants because of the seemingly number of benefits that it presents to the globe and world at large. This is because the reactors give and offer cheap and reliable, green and environmentally friendly source of energy (Wood, 17). In retrospect, it seems as if one would ask the rhetorical question on what is the rationale of banning such an incentive when the benefits are outright. This is to compare with the expensive and pollutant energy in the name of fossils which pollute the environment. The underlying aspect and principle is that nuclear plants and energy by extension does not pollute the environment in any case.

Subsequently, the fossil oils are getting depleted or are running out thus, the world would stand disadvantaged because of the continued use of fossil fuels. Thus it is not logical or rationale to ban the only alternative that is safer and cheaper because of the perceived dangers. Comparatively, more lives have been lost in fossil fuel plants since time immemorial relative to power plants. Thus if safety measures are taken, there would be no need to worry in this respect and aspect.

Works Cited

Chiras, Daniel D. Environmental Science. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2013. Print.

Rosenthal, Elvis. Advances in Nuclear Power. New Delhi: World Technologies, 2011. Internet resource.

Wood, J. Nuclear Power. London: Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2007. Internet resource

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?