http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/energy-in-your-state/nuclear-energy-in-ohio/
Even though the economic benefits of nuclear energy seem appealing, would Ohio be a safe area to use nuclear energy?
After learning about the problem that happened in Japan with the Fukushima plant, should Ohio continue to use nuclear energy as well as make new plants?
Because parts of Ohio are in the shale region of the United States, would it be more economically and environmentally promising to use natural gas from cracking or nuclear energy from plants?
Even though the economic benefits of nuclear energy seem appealing, would Ohio be a safe area to use nuclear energy?
After learning about the problem that happened in Japan with the Fukushima plant, should Ohio continue to use nuclear energy as well as make new plants?
Because parts of Ohio are in the shale region of the United States, would it be more economically and environmentally promising to use natural gas from cracking or nuclear energy from plants?
I think that while at first nuclear energy seems to be a ‘safer’ form of energy because the immediate environmental impacts are less evident, nuclear energy is a very high risk source of energy and any accident can have catastrophic effects. While on an economic standpoint the use of nuclear energy looks appealing, health issues such as storing hazardous waste and potential exposure to radiation pose great threats. I believe that it would be almost impossible to stop using nuclear energy all together any time soon, however, Ohio should not look to build any more nuclear power plants. Instead, we should focus our attention on alternative, safer, less threatening forms of energy. Nevertheless, I think that it is much more promising to use nuclear energy instead of natural gas from fracking as less greenhouse gases are released, and the environmental impacts of fracking are much greater than those of nuclear energy. Both processes, however, require a great deal of water, land, and money to be built and run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Annie when she says to focus our attention on finding more safer and less threatening forms of energy like wind on solar. However, I think that nuclear power plants offer a better environmental standpoint, that is, if there are no explosions, like the one at Fukushima. They provide a some-what cheap and clean energy source, and can provide us jobs, heat, and electricity, all in one. Ohio, who already has nuclear power plants, should focus on this more than fracking and cracking. These methods are very harmful to the environment and will do more damage then a non-explosive nuclear plant. Ohio, like an other state, is a safe place for a plant, however, it means the constant risk of a meltdown or radiation exposure. Ohioans will have to way the benefits and the risks in order to decide whether to continue building plants or not. I believe that we should not, simply because although they provide a better cleaner fuel source, the amount of damage they leave behind in the long run, for example what to do with the plants once they are decommissioned, is too large of a risk. Our energy should be focused on finding cleaner and alternative energy sources, rather then harming our environment in the short and long run with nonrenewable energy sources.
ReplyDeleteI think that although nuclear energy may seem to be a clean and economical energy to use, the arguments that this article uses is flawed. Although nuclear energy does not harm the environment through greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power plants also pump out nuclear wastes, which we have no way to get rid of right now but to store them. If we were to build more nuclear power plants, there would be more nuclear wastes and we would need a solution to get rid of that. Although nuclear power plants do give people more jobs, but it may not be as much as the article argues. The article says that 1400 to 1800 jobs are created off of construction jobs. We will not be building nuclear power plants for that long so eventually these people would lose their jobs once the nuclear power plants are built, leaving only 800- 1000 jobs created from these nuclear power plants. But then again, these nuclear plants cost billions of dollars and take up to 25 years to build. So thinking about it, is nuclear energy really the long term solution to our energy problems?
ReplyDeleteI believe that nuclear energy is a very promising supplier of energy for Ohio and much of the nation. It is an energy source that is ready to produce at high volumes without producing CO2 and other environmentally harmful emissions. Many people are terrified of the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, but if they investigated the accidents and realized that they were completely preventable they would understand that nuclear power plants dont have to be dangerous. The only way a nuclear plant becomes dangerous is if it loses power for an extended period of time. If all plants are constructed with very protected power sources and back up generators holding many, many hours of back up power, the possibility of a meltdown is extremely low. Also, constructing these power plants in regions that are away from the ocean and major fault lines will reduce the likelihood of the plant being struck by a natural disaster. I believe that while wind and solar energy should be looked into and further developed to take more of the electricity load off of coal, nuclear power is ready to go while solar and wind power just arent quite there yet. There are many issues holding back wind and solar power currently but nuclear power is fully developed and can be done safely, making it the best current option in clean energy. I think it should be further invested in and I think there should be more nuclear power plants built in the coming years.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest disappointment with nuclear energy is that it works too well. True, it creates extremely toxic waste and poses a threat to its immediate neighbors, but the consistent and reliable energy output over a forty year period is almost ideal in a region that has limited access to most fossil fuels (excluding natural gas).
ReplyDeleteI say that all of this is disappointing because it will distract developers and investors from the real long term solutions to our energy problems: Wind farms, solar power, and hydropower. Sure, all of these options have their shortcomings, but the technology for wind power is just as available as nuclear power, not to mention it's cheaper, and solar power doesn't just mean photovoltaic cells. There's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned Sterling engine, and using solar energy to heat water is, in some ways, as efficient as using fossil fuels. Really, with alternative energies, the question is not whether or not they are globally viable; the question is which particular technology would be most useful in any given region. Around here, a wind farm in Lake Erie makes sense because of all of the meteorological activity we have, whereas a solar field would work well in the Mojave Desert.
I think that Ohio would be a safe place to use nuclear energy. With Cleveland being on Lake Erie, and having an abundant supply of water to cool the reactors I think that more nuclear plants can provide more efficient and cheaper energy, and also create jobs. Also if these nuclear plants are put in place then possibly there could be less usage of the natural gas deposits available in Ohio, thus lowering green house gas emissions.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ohio should use what we already have in terms of nuclear energy, and if we continue to see the benefits of this technology as a cost effective clean source of energy, then we should pursue the creation of more of these plants. The nuclear powerplants I believe are our best bet in terms of energy. Even though they are stereotyped to be bad they are actually quite safe and cost effective. The fracking and drilling for natural gas would not only cost almost as much as the powerplant, but it would also destroy the environment in Ohio and release alot more toxins and greenhouse gases into or atmosphere.