Climate change is a pressing issue in this century. Thus, textbooks in schools and the education system overall are now applying unprecedented ways to instill and inculcate awareness of the environmental issue. As a result, human civilization is now vigorously finding solutions to tackle the crisis.
It is undeniable that the major cause of climate change is the emissions of greenhouse gases. While we are seeking to electrify society to turn civilization into a better and more advanced culture, the source of electricity plays a key role in achieving the almost unattainable goal of net zero emissions of greenhouse gases.
As we all know, fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas are a favored way in many countries to produce electricity in the world due to their abundance and affordable price. But there is a problem: it emits enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Therefore, renewable energy sources, as an alternative energy source, started to develop rapidly in recent years owing to the widespread of its advantages of social media and attracting billions of dollars of investments.
But here is what I would like to dispute: is nuclear energy better than renewables? Nuclear energy is also an alternative energy source to fossil fuels!
Study towards nuclear power postponed since the 1970s, except for the six nations such as China and Pakistan for military purposes. Nuclear power plant now exists in the world and still uses technology that already existed a few decades ago to produce electricity. It is a sad thing for humanity, in my opinion.
Nuclear fission generates an immense amount of power. But it also generates condemnations and is being crowded out too. One of the factors is that nuclear made a violent entrance to humanity when two Japanese cities were destroyed by just two nukes, enduring the radiological and psychological impact of nuclear disasters in people’s hearts. Nuclear slowly evolves as a source of electricity. But it’s always intimately connected with nuclear weapons technology.
Luckily the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is signed by the majority of countries to serve the purpose of spreading nuclear reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons. Although nuclear reactor is certainly the introduction of nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation treaty has finite success, every leader has clear understanding of the deadly effects by using it.
The next factor is the accidents and disasters caused by nuclear power plants in recent years. Prominent news such as the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station also psychologically affects people’s willingness to research nuclear power. A significant amount of radioactivity released to the environment tells the severity of the nuclear power plants. The situation will absolutely go worse after the omnipresence of nuclear power plants. It is a relatively remarkable point of criticism. Theoretically, it can be controlled with detailed research by determining the location that is suitable to minimize the possibility of an accident to happen. Though on the other hand, human operations are a risk to consider.
The third reason why nuclear energy is horrendous is the nuclear waste and the pollution it makes. I am happy that I have evidence to refute the statement. Nuclear waste is a concern because the nuclear substance used is uranium. And uranium can be replaced! Thorium is an abundant substance that is hard to turn into nuclear weapons and is less wasteful than current nuclear reactors. The waste is also dangerous for only a few hundred years, in contrast to a couple of thousand years of uranium. Additionally, 1 ton of thorium can generate power as 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal. So thorium may be the pinnacle for the nuclear power industry, but more research is needed to be more conservative.
Renewables don’t have waste problems whatsoever. But the efficiency of the energy source is low and requires a tremendous area to fit solar panels or windmills for a country’s need for electricity. Magnificent clearing of land for a renewable power plant like the Ivanpah solar farm has contributed to the consequence of the extinction of species in nature. Besides, solar energy that we think is clean may not be like that: solar panels have a lifespan like a battery and what are we going to do to the rubbish?
Before this article ends, I would like to express my views that nuclear is still a considerable option to eliminate carbon emissions and not look at it with bias. Renewable energy sources may have disadvantages as I have listed above. But with constant research on two of the energy sources, agonizing problems and the resembled pitfalls will be solved eventually.
In summary, innovation and investment in renewable energy sources and nuclear energy is needed INSTANTANEOUSLY for human survival.
By: NG TAI CHEONG
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
