Everyone has some form of struggle with energy, and with Fossil Fuels being the main frontrunner in energy production, it leads to environmental concern, pollution, and global warming. We need a reliable source of clean, efficient energy that is low in cost and high in output. Enter Nuclear Energy, the simple, plain, and most hated yet most reliable energy source we have today.
Nuclear first emerged as a viable energy source when the United States rocked the world with the dramatic end to their 4 year war with Japan, but this flashy entrance would practically be it’s undoing. As with the peak of the Hippie Movement in the 60’s, Nuclear Energy’s reputation was bashed to no end, with many major Non-Profit Organizations bringing these tree hugging hippies together to protest. One of these organizations, Greenpeace, though noble in intentions, stands firmly against Nuclear Energy. However, their former director believes otherwise. Patrick Moore, former director of Greenpeace, goes against the organization’s firm belief that Nuclear Energy is dangerous and states that the benefits heavily outweigh the disadvantages. Moore states that accidents are very rare and even more rarely cause environmental harm, challenging Greenpeace’s propaganda against Nuclear.
But it’s not just Nuclear running for Energy Source of the Future. Solar, Hydropower, Geothermal, Windpower, and many other forms of renewable energy, but there’s a reason Nuclear is the most reliable. Solar, while energy sufficient, raises high installment costs and environmental concern in the field of dispensing panel batteries. Wind Turbines take up too much space and isn’t able to generate energy or even hold stored energy when the wind isn’t blowing. Geothermal brings a risky gamble of permeable locations to drill wells, with high initial costs and even steeper risk of station danger or destruction, considering these wells are usually placed near tectonic plates. Hydropower is completely out of the question, it brings risks of habitat disruption, out of the question construction costs, and will never produce NEARLY enough energy to be worth any of it! Nuclear, on the other hand, produces insane amounts of energy, is easy to distribute, cheap to produce, and takes up small areas, with the only handicap being high building costs, but every energy source deals with that, is it really that much different?
In conclusion, Nuclear Energy’s benefits well outweigh it’s exaggerated consequences. Unlike the overrated renewable sources of energy, Nuclear truly is the energy source of the future.
References
- https://www.ans.org/news/article-4126/former-greenpeace-director-explains-his-support-for-nuclear-energy/
- https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
- https://www.epa.gov/energy/distributed-generation-electricity-and-its-environmental-impacts
- https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php
