Final Critical Assignment

The main issue of the article is whether or not we should increasingly rely on nuclear power and make it our No1 source of energy given endless concerns about its safety and expensive cost. Undoubtedly, in a world of increasing population, diminishing natural resources and worsening climate change, nuclear energy is considered the key future energy resolution. In favor of greater reliance on nuclear energy, Mark Lynas – a climate-science author strongly brought in the reasons of: 1st, nuclear power avoiding climate change while fossil fuels have failed to do so and green energy capability is still being questioned; 2nd, opponents overstating danger even after many reactors has been safety improved; 3rd, the cost is acceptable comparing to other renewables energy. In contrast, Peter A.Bradford – former commissioner of the U.S.Nulear Regulatory Commission insisted in the alternatives, arguing that nuclear power is too costly to be pursued, not to mention its danger and potential severe impacts on people’s health. Obviously, the need of understanding the issue from comprehensive perspectives with substantial data support is essential to weigh the risks and benefits of each opinion.

First, from environmental perspective, nuclear power is a clean energy which generates electricity without CO2 emission, as emphasized by Mark Lynas. He also turned down the option of solely depending on renewables as even renewables “proportion can increase, sustainable declines in carbon emissions will require much more”. But, is it totally true that nuclear power could help reduce carbon emissions sustainably? The answer is No. Although “nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide as part of its power generation process, it is associated with fossil fuel emissions during the mining and transportation of uranium” (EPA.gov) Thus, after considering mining and transportation process, the idea of nuclear energy as free-carbon emission should be questioned.
For Peter A.Bradford, he