Persuasive Essay On Nuclear Power Plants

English 111.62
1 October 2013
Nuclear Power Plants.
In the editorial from the Los Angeles Times dated July 23, 2007 the author goes on to talk about a public assessment of nuclear power as a possible solution to global warming. We are being told that nuclear plants are a good thing but the author also describes risks that are involved. “Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be a part of any solution to climate change because nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases” states the editorial in the Los Angeles Times. (367) The author argues that they make a weak case. Stating that “...ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process far too slow to make a difference on global warming.” (367). Nuclear power is extremely risky. There are cleaner, cheaper and faster alternatives that come with none of the risks. (367)
The author of this editorial claims that the risks of nuclear plants increase when spent fuel is
recycled. Arguing that the recycling process leaves behind highly radioactive waste that can remain hazardous for many years. The only way to get rid of this waste is to dispose of it underground. But this isn’t the only risk the author goes on to talk about, weapons proliferation that is also a serious concern. The uranium that is used is concentrated enough for a dirty bomb. The big scare is that other nations that have nuclear plants may also be building a bomb factory. Not to mention the author explains that the average nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $4 billion and could take more than a decade to build.
The author concludes that given the drawbacks of nuclear plants, it’s surprising that anyone would consider a nuclear renaissance. The interest for plants are growing and nations that have bans are slowly starting to look into them. But they claim that nuclear plants can not even be built fast enough to help fight the drastic climate change.
Word count (318) While many people think nuclear power plants are good for the environment they don’t realize it is very costly, risky and there are many alternatives. The author of the editorial in the Los Angeles Times states that environmentalists argue that nuclear power is part of a solution to climate change because nuclear power plants do not release greenhouse gases. But the writer expresses this is a weak case. Saying that the large cost of building the plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, and endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that raising the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process, far too slow to affect climate. The author makes a very valid point. To build a nuclear power plant it’s estimated to cost about $4 billion.
Since there are many risks involved there isn’t much interest by investors. Tax incentives and subsidies haven’t been enough to bring them in. (369) Spending $4 billion on something that is involved with so many risks, seems way out of budget. Not only is building nuclear plants out of budget but it also takes a decade to build, while an alternative, such as renewable wind and solar power doesn’t take near as long to build. A study done in 2006 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas, but the world would have to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. (369) Building nuclear plants takes a large amount of time and to reduce greenhouse gas they would have to build them at an impossible rate. Even if building them were possible it would still overwhelm the companies that make the parts to build the
plants. Not only are the plants costly but they are extremely risky. Nuclear power plants are considered to attract terrorist. The plants act as one big terrorist target. The author expresses that the plants must have threat assessments and background checks on the workers to ensure they are not terrorists. (369) Weapon proliferation goes along with terrorism and endangering our country. The writer claims the uranium used in nuclear reactors isn’t concentrated enough for anything but a big, dirty bomb. (369) Any other country wanting to build nuclear plants are being looked at as building a bomb factory. It is definitely very suspicious to have such concentrated uranium in one area but the U.S can’t be the only ones “allowed” to build the plants. Another big problem is that the plants are not indestructible by earthquakes and natural disasters. When the nuclear plants are damaged they can cause major spills and even deaths. The risks are even greater when the spent fuel is recycled. The recycling process leaves behind high radioactive waste, and the only proper way is to bury it deep underground. (368) Even then, the nuclear waste still remains harmful for tens of thousands of years. There hasn’t been a country yet that has built an underground waste department. All the nuclear waste is stored on site, the author states and that leaves risks of leaks and danger to the workers. The nuclear plants many countries want to make would take far too long to build and just have to many risks involved. Even though it is said that nuclear power cuts down greenhouse gas the world can not build them fast enough to even come close to changing the greenhouse emissions. Alternatives include, renewable wind and solar power, and decentralized power generators. The writer argues that the decentralized power generators are doing more work and producing more energy than the plants are worldwide. Meanwhile, the wind and solar power are limitless and according to May report by research firm Standard; Poor’s, it is much cheaper to produce. (369) The writer expresses that on average, coal plants operate at 30% efficiency but newer plants operate at 46%. He claims that if the world average went to 42% it would save the same amount of carbon as building 800 nuclear plants. (369) The alternatives also have risks, but none of them being as severe as the nuclear plants. The high cost, extreme risks, and having alternatives nuclear plants should not be built. For taking a decade to build the world could raise the coal plants to 42% worldwide and save the same amount of carbon as 800 nuclear plants. The safer the environment, the better. We are trying to protect our world to the best of our ability and building more nuclear power plants are going to cause serious problems.

Work Cited
“No to Nukes” Editorial. Los Angeles Times 23 July 2007. Rpt. in Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 6th ed. New York: Pearson, 2012. 124-5. Print.