Nuclear Energy Argumentative Essay include at least 3 quotes from each essay. 800-1000 words – read essays “going nuclear” p.414 & “ten reasons why new n

Nuclear Energy Argumentative Essay include at least 3 quotes from each essay. 800-1000 words

– read essays

“going nuclear” p.414 & “ten reasons why new nuclear was a mistake – even before Fukushium”

also, read chapter 16, “argument: convincing others”

against con: based on scientific data i believe that nuclear power is a threat to our environment and human life, especially regarding nuclear waste disposal and how long redioactive pautules remain after nuclear accident .

for pro: based on scientific data, i believe that nuclear energy is safer than energy generated from fossil fuels. especially considering the great number of lung and heart desease victims from coal, stacks, automobiles, etc. 114
Reader
enou
beer
6
Am
pla
i de
1
my
th
cli
ет
fo
fc
g
8
1
Establishes credibility
or audience
efines audience for
rgument
tates thesis
2
Hentifies problem with
vidence
PATRICK MOORE
Going Nuclear
Patrick Moore was born in 1947, received a Ph.D. in ecology from the university of British
Columbia and served as an environmental activist with Greenpeace from 1971-1986.
Since then, he has taken very different views from Greenpeace, suggesting that global
warming may not be man made and that nuclear power is an important environmental
solution. He is co-founder and chief scientist for the consulting firm of Greenspirit Strate-
gies
. He is also a paid lobbyist for the Nuclear
Energy Institute, One question readers need
to consider is whether his history and current affiliations should influence how his article
is evaluated. “Going Nuclear” appeared as an opinion piece in the Sunday edition of the
Washington Post, April 16, 2006.
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear
energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots.
That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular
rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s
Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the
environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy
may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible
disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United
States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions-or nearly 10 percent of global
emissions of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can re-
duce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.
And these days it can do so safely.
I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. “The nuclear
technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else,” he said. But there
is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated
to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.
And although I don’t want to underestimate the very real dangers of nu-
clear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every tech-
nology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of
the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and
the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson
of fear with their starring roles in “The China Syndrome,” a fictional evocation
of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city’s survival. Less
than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at
Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of
anguish throughout the country.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was
in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was
designed to do-prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And
although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among
nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious acci
dent in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was
3
ffers answer to
oblem
4
knowledges criticism
very real
5
mwers objection with
n that can be tested
eader
Х
Assignment
ECI 016 50 2019
May 20 at 12.55pm
Clarification on Rab 3 18
crashing mobilem
SOLO
വാ
х
enough
en een
μακρο
1
British
-1986.
global
mental
Strate
s need
article
of the
Elear
iots.
ular
Eka’s
the
ergy
to scare us away from further developing the technology. There hasn’t
been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of
Argument 415
plants approve of them (that’s not including the nuclear workers). Although
America’s electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these
I don’t live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.
And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing the
my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of
the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic
climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog.” says the
cognizable pole
environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from
fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication
from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore,
founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the
group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter
There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the
staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meet-
ing in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a
sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emis-
sions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable
energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat
pumps, wind, etc.
) plus nuclear.
The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and
I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of
what I said-not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all
options must be explored.
Here’s why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are in Demonstrates
limitations with
termittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such
as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive al- alternatives
ready, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that
hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimina-
tion, the only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.
That’s not to say that there aren’t real problems–as well as various myths Siructure essay to
answer objections
associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:
Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy
sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States objection
Provides evidence to
States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydro-
counter objection
electric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
Identities
Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story,
ble
ted
bal
9
ge.
re-
er.
id
ar
re
d
10
11
1-
7-
f
H
12
the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was
an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no con objections
tainment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it
up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths
could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or
burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in
comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide
every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the
U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium
mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of
that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)
Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used
fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed
Uses evidence to place
risk in perspective
13
416
Reader
States serious objection
Partially answers
objection by providing
factual evidence and
suggesting the possible
solution to the problem
Objection
from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the
potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that
the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible
ment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the
to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treat-
14
nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.
Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced
15
16
17
the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the con-
Offers a factual answer
tainment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that
to the objection
are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and
numerous political targets.
Objection
Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious
issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as the
example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil
purposes is not an argument to ban its use.
Uses reductio ad
Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools-the machete-has been
absurdum approach
used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in
to show that banning a
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs
dangerous substance is made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used
not practical
to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.
The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation
is to put it higher on the international agenda and to use diplomacy and, where
Offers an alternative to
solve the problem
necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear materials
for destructive ends. And new technologies such as the reprocessing system re-
cently introduced in Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the
uranium) can make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use
civilian materials to manufacture weapons.
The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO, annually-
Restates the
environmental problem
the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition,
the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent
of
with evidence
sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mer-
cury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment,
producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.
Offers evidence that
Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively
he use of nuclear
avoid the release of 700 million tons of Co, emissions annually—the equivalent
ants would reduce
of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of
ollution in conclusion coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was gener
ated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward
Hvocates for support -cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible envi-
his position
ronmentalist should support a move in that direction.
18
19
Discussion Questions
1. In paragraph 1, the introduction, the author identifies his role in Green-
peace and his initial opposition to nuclear power before he states his current
support for nuclear power. Why does the author start in this way, and is it effec-
tive?
2. Should the fact that the author is clearly paid to support nuclear power by the
nuclear industry have any bearing on how readers evaluate his argument?
123pm
TYPO in AutoCAD
Assignment
ECI 016 50 2019
May 20 at 12:55pm!
carification on R53
х
மைகளை
e, because 95 percent of the
that audience?
after the first cycle. Now that
used fuel, it will be possible
at of waste that needs treat-
Who is the target audience for this argument? Why did the chose this
target audience? What particular parts of the argument are used specifically for
4. The author attempts to answer common “myths” about near port Why
does he employ this strategy? Why is or isti’t his approach effective with his
5. The author’s argument is that nuclear power is the best answer to probala
ing. What could he do to strengthen this argument?
readers?
Britain and Russia in the
not be far behind.
e six-feet-thick reinforced
417
om the outside as well as
ctor and breach the con-
any types of facilities that
nts, chemical plants and
foward Key Insights
This is the most serious
cult to address, as the
ogy can be put to evil
Often we face not the best possible answer but rather the least undesirable op
tion. Consider the ways that in this and other situations we may face such unfor-
The discussion of nuclear power often comes down to an assessment of risk. How
much risk is there? How can risk be evaluated in determining whether we should
expand the number of nuclear power plants?
unate choices.
– machete-has been
than were killed in
What are car bombs
ng that can be used
pons proliferation
omacy and, where
nuclear materials
cessing system re-
parated from the
gue states to use
suggestions for Writing
1. Focusing on the core point of this essay, do additional research and write an
argument either supporting or opposing the use of nuclear power as a solution
to global warming.
2. Take one of the myths he discusses, do additional research, and write a paper
arguing for or against that point, such as whether or not nuclear power is
expensive.
3. If you oppose nuclear power, write to environmentalists countering this au-
thor’s argument that nuclear power is the answer to environmental problems.
4. If you support nuclear power, do additional research and write an article spe-
cifically to an audience opposed to nuclear power because of the risks involved
and who are not strong environmentalists otherwise.
Co, annually
es. In addition,
– 64 percent of
-rcent of mer-
environment,
ination
es effectively
e equivalent
the ratio of
was gener-
vay toward
asible envi-
ALEXIS ROWELL
Ten Reasons Why New Nuclear Was
a MistakeEven Before Fukushima
Alexis Rowell was born in 1965. He was for a time a BBC Journalist. He was the founder
of the consulting group cuttingthecarbon and was elected member of Camden Council in
2006. He has been appointed to be Camden Eco Champion and is Chair of the council’s Az-
party Sustainability Task Force. He is author of Communities, Councils & a Low Car-
Culture: an Evolving Exploration into the Head, Heart, and Hands of Energy Descent
rent
effec-
bon Future. The article below was posted on March 15, 2011, on the website Transition
– the
It’s hardly a surprise that building nuclear power stations on seismic
fault lines, as Japan has done, turns out to be a foolish thing. In the pause for
418
Reader
2
3
4
5
reflection about the safety of nuclear power that the Fukushima disaster is
bound to create, here are ten reasons why it’s a mistake to build a new round of
nuclear power stations in the UK.
Nuclear Power Is Too Expensive
Nuclear has always been an expensive white elephant. UK taxpayers cur
rently subsidise nuclear directly to the tune of more than £lbn per year. But the
indirect subsidies such as decommissioning and insurance are far greater.
The cost of decommissioning old nuclear in the UK is now estimated to be
at least £73bn.? Surely anyone wishing to provide new nuclear should have to
put that sort of sum into an up-front clean-up fund. But of course they won’t
They can’t possibly afford to.
If there’s a nuclear accident in the UK, then who will pay? An insurance
company? Not a hope. Existing UK reactors are insured to the tune of £140m
each, which the government is talking about increasing to £1.2bn, but that’s still
nothing like enough to cover a serious accident like Fukushima or Three Mile
Island or Chernobyl.3
Nuclear power is uninsurable. It’s too risky and the potential payouts are
too big. The government, meaning the UK taxpayer, will have to pay as we did to
bail out the banks. The free market will never bear the true costs of nuclear.
A report published by the US Union of Concerned Scientists last month
said nuclear power had never operated in the United States without public sub-
sidies. The existence of an Office of Nuclear Development at the Department
of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) makes a mockery of Chris Huhne’s
claim that no public money will be spent on new nuclear.5
Only two atomic power stations are under construction in Western Europe:
one in France and one in Finland. The Finnish reactor, which was supposed
to be the first of a new generation of “safe” and “affordable” units, has been
subsidised by the French nuclear industry (and therefore the French state) as a
loss leader in the hope that it will spark a new nuclear building boom. When the
decision was announced Standard & Poor instantly downgraded to “negative
the stock of the Finnish utility commissioning the reactor. The project has been
plagued with cost overruns and delays (it was due to open in 2009), is under
investigation by the Finnish nuclear safety regulator STUK and is probably the
single best reason why new nuclear is a mistake.6
6
7
8
New Nuclear Power Stations Won’t Be Ready in Time
According to the 2007 Energy White Paper the earliest the first new nuclear
power station could possibly be ready is 2020.7 Chris Huhne occasionally says it
might be possible by 2018 but most observers disagree. However we need to re-
place 40% of our energy generation by 2015 because old nuclear and coal-fired
plants are set to close. New nuclear will come too late.
‘www.psiru.org/reports/2008-03-F-nuclearsubsidies.doc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/30/nuclearpower.energy
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pnl1_007/pn11_007.aspx
“Koplow, D. (2011). http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
Dwww.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/nuclear/new/office/office.aspx
Thomas, S. (2010). “The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update.” http://boell.org/downloads/Thomas_UK
_web.pdf
Thttp://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/white_papers/white_paper_07/white_paper_07.aspx

Purchase answer to see full
attachment