Argue for Or Against Nuclear Energy Essay 800-1000 words, be specific and convincing. This is first article https://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-03-15

Argue for Or Against Nuclear Energy Essay 800-1000 words, be specific and convincing.

This is first article

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-03-15/ten-reasons-why-new-nuclear-was-mistake-%E2%80%93-even-fukushima/

This is second article

The specific information is in the files. It includes the detail of this essay. Prompt
Argue for or against nuclear energy.
Include at least 3 quotes from each
Essay.
800 – 1000 words
Read Essays:
Going luclear
put
& “Ten Reasons why Now Nuclear
Was a mistake. Even Before Fukushima
– Also, Read Chapter 16, “Argument:
17
Convincing others
Con
Based on scientific data, I believe
that muclear power is a threat to
Against our environment and human life
especially regarding nuclear waste
disposal and how long radioactive
partueles remain after nucleur accidents,
Based on scientific data, I believe that
Pro
nuclear ens
energy is safer than energy,
generated from fossil fuels especially
considering the great number of
and heart desease victims from coal
stacks, automobiles, etc.
For
lung
414
Reader
PATRICK MOORE
MUS
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.
1
Establishes credibility
for audience
Defines audience for
argument
States thesis
2
Identifies problem with
evidence
3
Offers answer to
problem
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 Co,, 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 very
real
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
4
Acknowledges criticism
5
Answers objection with
claim that can be tested
by reader
enough
6
ritish
986
obal
ntal
rate
need
dicle
the
S
ts.
ar
a’s
he
3
le
d
11
9
been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
to scare us away from further developing the technology. There hasn’t
415
Argument
Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of
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
Offers evidence of
I don’t live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.
public support
And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing
7
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 readers
Cites an authority
climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” says the
recognizable by possible
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
termittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such
limitations with
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.
10 That’s not to say that there aren’t real problems—as well as various myths- Structures essay to
associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:
answer objections
11 Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy
States objection
sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United
States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydro-
Provides evidence to
electric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
counter objection
12 Nuclear plants are
safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story,
Identifies
the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was
objections
an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no con-
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
Uses evidence to place
that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)
risk in perspective
13
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
Reader
14
States scrious 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
Partially answers
the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible
objection by providing
factual evidence and
to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treat-
stiggesting the possible
ment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the
solution to the problem
nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.
Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced
Objection
concrete containment vessel protects the contents from the outside as well as
the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the con-
Offers a factual anstser 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
15 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.
16 Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools—the machete-has been
Uses reductio ad
used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in
absurdum approach
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs
o show that banning a
made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used
Cangerous substance is
ot practical
to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.
17 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
ffers an alternative to
elve 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.
18 The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO, annually—
estates the
the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition,
vironmental problem
the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of
th 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.
19
ffers evidence that
Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively
ne use of nuclear
avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO, emissions annually—the equivalent
lants 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
cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible envi-
ronmentalist should support a move in that direction.
dvocates for support
or his position
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?
es.
ver but rather the least undesirable op
22
2
hat 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?
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.
ALEXIS ROWELL
be
Ten Reasons Why New Nuclear Was
a Mistake-Even 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 All-
party Sustainability Task Force. He is author of Communities, Councils & a Low Car-
bon Future. The article below was posted on March 15, 2011, on the website Transition
Culture: an Evolving Exploration into the Head, Heart, and Hands of Energy Descent.
1
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
Argument
killed every year
car reactor
like the government has decided that existing buildings
savings-is set to be a completely inadequate sticking plaster solution. It feels
with seriously which is why they’re so gung-ho about new nuclear-to fuel elec-
are too difficult to deal
tric radiators the energy from which will then be wasted through leaky windows,
walls, roofs and floors. The only way to create genuinely low energy buildings is
by using Passivhaus design.20 Asking the UK’s building sector to refurbish build-
ings using a proper engineering standard will be a challenge, but it is at least a
coherent approach. Unlike new nuclear and the Green Deal.
ad
lou blown some
is enough peo
ralise electric
2) Renewables and possibly combined heat & power in urban areas
if we can find enough non-fossil fuels to run it)
Nuclear has taken up a huge amount of civil servant time over the last few
20
principle holds
in a couple of
call aspects of
ed to talk abou
other than run
he UK that has
years. That’s time that could have been spent on renewables. Britain has by far
the most potential for wind and tidal power in Europe because of our geograd
just 3.2% of our electricity from wind. Germany obtained 9.4%
from wind in 2010, Spain generated 14.4% and Denmark managed a whopping
The reason the Danes are so far ahead on wind is because they learnt
21
the right lessons from the oil shocks of the 1970s and started planning for a
renewably-powered future back then. The UK, by contrast, was blinded by the
discovery of North Sea Oil.
24%.22
isks
nuclear non
Id lead to the
clear security
22
lear disarma
ing with the
and Israel re
Hevelopment
3) Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs)
Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) are a way of using the market to reduce
fossil fuel energy consumption.23 Every adult is given an equal free entitlement
of TEQs units each week. Other energy users (government, industry etc.) bid
for their units at a weekly auction. If you use less than your entitlement, you can
sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at
a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand. When you
buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units
corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from
your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. The number of
units available in the country is set out in the TEQs Budget, which goes
down
was about
ons why the
ere “impor
each year.
23
There are greener, cheaper, more secure, quicker to install
, safer alternatives to new
nuclear so don’t let yourself be persuaded that it’s the only solution. It’s not.
quire a lot
prepared
Discussion Questions
cholders
1. The writer offers ten reasons against nuclear power and organizes them with
bold headers. What might be his rhetorical reason for organizing them in this
way? Is it effective?
2. The writer spends the most time arguing that nuclear power is too expensive
rather than unsafe. Why might he have chosen to focus on that concern? Is that
Dezy bull
http://www.cuttingthecarbon.co.uk/home/passivhaus-standard
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Wind-Turbines
http://ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/EWEA_Annual_Statistics_2010.pdf
http://www.teqs.net
Prompt
Argue for or against nuclear energy.
Include at least 3 quotes from each
Essay.
800 – 1000 words
Read Essays:
Going luclear
put
& “Ten Reasons why Now Nuclear
Was a mistake. Even Before Fukushima
– Also, Read Chapter 16, “Argument:
17
Convincing others
Con
Based on scientific data, I believe
that muclear power is a threat to
Against our environment and human life
especially regarding nuclear waste
disposal and how long radioactive
partueles remain after nucleur accidents,
Based on scientific data, I believe that
Pro
nuclear ens
energy is safer than energy,
generated from fossil fuels especially
considering the great number of
and heart desease victims from coal
stacks, automobiles, etc.
For
lung
414
Reader
PATRICK MOORE
MUS
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.
1
Establishes credibility
for audience
Defines audience for
argument
States thesis
2
Identifies problem with
evidence
3
Offers answer to
problem
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 p…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment