The Bright and Dark Sides of Nuclear Energy

Picture this, you have an uneasy feeling about a dreadful situation but you shake it off and continue work at the nuclear plant. Suddenly, you and your colleagues make a mistake and then kaboom! It explodes, and you never see your beautiful family or your kids who need you. Are you wondering what happened? Chernobyl, one of history's worst nuclear disasters, raised red flags about nuclear energy. 39 years ago on April 26, 1986, the catastrophic disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant occurred, located in Ukraine, part of Russia at the time. Unfortunately one of reactor four exploded which led to an explosion and spread the radiation which led to countless numbers of people evacuated and caused plenty of people to get thyroid cancer, cardiovascular diseases and cataracts. In the modern world there is a battle for different resources. Some countries are considering the pros of nuclear energy but are uncertain about nuclear energy after Chernobyl. To this day it is being debated if it is a great alternative or could be a recreation of Chernobyl. After examining the issues of nuclear energy, it is clear that there are both positives and negatives impacts on the environment and varying contributions to climate change, serious health issues and scars left on people as well as case studies based on countries.

Nuclear energy holds key advantages, acting as a reliable source of energy to coal and natural gas, in order to battle climate change along with protecting the environment for the future generations. Also, under the Sustainable Development Act, there is a considerable shift from non-renewable resources to nuclear energy by 2030. According to multiple researcher from China have expressed their expertise on the benefit of nuclear energy, as a reliable source of electricity and it superiority to non-renewable resources: “Nuclear energy supplies high base-load electricity, which is more reliable, sustainable and economic than other clean energy sources, such as hydropower, solar power and wind power. Moreover, pursuing nuclear energy has become prominent to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 7 (affordable, reliable and modern energy sources), SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production modes) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities)” (Liu, et al 2). The paragraph argues that nuclear energy is a better alternative to electricity than of coal and oil as they run out more quickly not only that they take more than million years to produce oil and coal again. Moreover, nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient compared to renewable resources like hydropower, solar power or wind power. Additionally, the expansion of nuclear energy is crucial as it must achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in order to protect the future of planet, as climate change poses as a major obstacle towards the betterment of the planet, as it can destroy the ozone layer which shields us from the harmful radiation of the sun, not only that with ice melting abnormally fast which can cause sea levels rising and potentially sinking the entire planet therefore nuclear energy is great alternative to meet Sustainable Development Act as it helps reduce the impact of non-renewable resources while being cheap and effective. In addition, Gonzalo H. Soto and Xavier Martinez-Cobas from China and Spain respectively express their expertise on nuclear energy. They claim it is a great alternative to oil and coal as it releases carbon dioxide, which is really harmful for the people and the environment and can have a serious impact in the future of the planet, “Nuclear power plants generate electricity through nuclear fission, which does not release carbon dioxide or other green- house gases. As a result, nuclear energy can contribute to lowering CO2 emissions, as it serves as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuel-based energy”(Soto and Cobas, 6). The paragraph describes how nuclear energy works and how it is a great substitute to oil or coal. This fact depicts how society should consider great alternatives to non-renewable resources which release poisonous gases like CO2 or renewable resources which can take so much of money or time to build them. Nuclear Energy is a better replacement because it uses nuclear fission which is how it creates energy compared to coal or oil which release poisonous greenhouse gases. These Solutions can help with tackling climate change and hopefully meet the Sustainable Acts which can potentially make the planet a habitable place to live for the future generations of humankind.To sum it up, there is a great advantage of having nuclear energy as an alternative to non-renewable energy as it doesn’t emit poisonous greenhouses gases and it is more sustainable and cheaper compared to renewable resources.

While nuclear energy offers significant advantages including reducing carbon emissions, and a reliable source of energy, the potential risks associated with nuclear energy can’t be overlooked by some countries who are skeptical after the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl which can lead to deaths and serious health concerns. Additionally, the main source of energy for nuclear energy is uranium and is a limited resource as it is extremely limited and the mining can cause environmental degradation which can wreak havoc if not done properly. By establishing the drawbacks of nuclear energy “Gonzalo H. Soto” and “Xavier Martinez-Cobas” expertises that nuclear energy has consequences when we are mining for uranium especially if it isn’t done in the right way and can wreak havoc on the environment, “The study highlights that while nuclear energy generation produces no air pollution, it does impose significant land use requirements, potentially leading to ecosystem degradation. Factors such as uranium extraction, nuclear waste management, disposal, and accidents contribute to this impact. Further research is needed to understand the specific mechanisms and factors contributing to the observed environmental degradation associated with nuclear energy generation”(Sotos and Cabos, Pg 1). The paragraph argues about the problems that nuclear energy produces and can have a lasting impact on the environment. While nuclear energy can reduce air pollution and release of poisonous gases, it also poses notable issues. One major concern is its impact on biodiversity, as uranium obtained from uranium extraction can disrupt the biodiversity as it can take almost a 1000 years for the ecosystem to recover and can destroy the soil and plants which is key for any life to take place in the ecosystem which is often overlooked consequences of nuclear energy. Some people consider it a great source of energy as it doesn’t cause pollution however, they often overlook the important impact it can have and this deeper understanding reveals why nuclear energy is not the perfect solution to climate change as there are hidden consequences. Furthermore, Linda Harvey and Robert Oliphant describe the effects of the Chernobyl, one of the most devastating nuclear disasters in history which resulted in numerous deaths, widespread radioactive contamination across Eastern Europe and serious health problems for the affected population. "Chernobyl has, by some estimates, caused up to 800,000 premature deaths. It left parts of Eastern Europe heavily contaminated and contributed to widespread serious health problems among local populations”(Harvey and Oliphant).

This presentation describes the tragic accident at Chernobyl, by highlighting the key statistics and facts it describes the severe consequences of nuclear energy when it is not done in a proper manner. The Disaster, caused close to 800,000 deaths, also led to widespread radioactive contamination that has left a scar on much of Eastern Europe. This contamination continues to pose a risk as it can stay in soil, water and air for decades which made some Eastern European countries uninhabitable and increasing the risk of diseases like thyroid cancer or cardiovascular diseases which leaves plenty of countries being suspicious about nuclear energy as some countries don’t want similar problems to Eastern Europe is facing. In conclusion, while nuclear energy is a great alternative source of energy to fossil fuels, there are hidden consequences similar to Chernobyl that show that there are risks with lasting impact towards environment and human health therefore it is not a perfect solution to battle climate change.

Although the usage of nuclear energy is still debated, however some countries have implemented the usage of nuclear energy to generate electricity while some countries still are skeptical about nuclear energy, fearing it might cause a disaster similar to Chernobyl. Hanife Topal-Namli and Suat Sean Namli from Texas and Turkey highlight the benefits of nuclear energy by examining how it is helping France and compare the emission rates to Germany to counter argue the negatives of nuclear energy, "France generates 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and emits 6.6 tons of CO₂ per capita, compared with 10.4 tons for Germany” (Namali, Page 7). While some people might raise concerns about nuclear energy, it is clear that there are some significant advantages to adopting it. One of the important benefits is its ability to stop the emission of poisonous gases produced by non-renewable energy which can cause environmental degradation. Nuclear Energy offers a cleaner and a sustainable way to generate electricity. For example, France generates ¾ of its electricity from nuclear power which contributes to its lower emission compared to Germany where they emit CO2 at a staggering rate which can have devastating impacts on the environment and slowly making our earth more uninhabitable and unbearable due to high CO2 therefore, it is crucial to transition from non-renewable resources to cleaner resources like nuclear energy.Though, some people consider nuclear energy as a great alternative, some people can argue that it isn’t a perfect solution. Hanife Topal-Namli and Suat Sean Namli emphasize this concern by pointing to the negative lasting impact Chernboyl disaster has left on the innocent people who died or had to leave their place because it was uninhabitable, which continues to shape the complete distrust some people might have on nuclear energy,“As a Country which closely witnessed Chernoboyl in 1986, it is difficult to convince people of nuclear benefits”(Namali, Pg 1). This statement suggests that people in the regions affected by nuclear disasters can lose trust quickly as they don’t want another nuclear disaster. The memory of Chernobyl has left psychological scars as plenty of people didn’t want contamination or environmental degradation, making it harder for the government and scientists to promote it, even though it is a great alternative to non-renewable resources. This illustrates that though it is a great alternative it is still debated because some people are skeptical about nuclear energy as they don’t want to lose more people, lose their home or continue to negatively impact the environment which is a challenge for both government and people to fight climate change. In conclusion, nuclear energy is an excellent reliable source of energy however it isn’t the perfect solution as some countries are skeptical as one side they need to battle climate change while worrying about people safety which makes nuclear energy a highly debated issue whether to implement it or not.

Overall, after research and consideration, it becomes evident that there are some pros and cons of nuclear energy and how different countries think about nuclear energy. On one side there are significant advantages to nuclear energy like a great alternative to nonrenewable resources like coal or oil which release more poisonous gases, which can cause environmental degradation. However, it isn’t a perfect solution as it could contaminate the environment like the soil or the water which can make life uninhabitable and leave psychological scars as it is evident in Eastern Europe which makes countries like Turkey who are close to incident lost trust which can be challenge in order to battle climate change and they don’t want further damage to their country as a small part of it has been affected with contamination from the disaster making some parts of it uninhabitable , however, countries like France are stepping up to battle climate change by implementing nuclear energy which generates 75 percent of their energy through nuclear energy which doesn’t emit CO2 making it a perfect alternative to battle climate change, however nuclear energy is still debated to this day.

Works Cited

Harvey, Linda, and Robert Oliphant. "Nukes or Not? The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power from a Health Perspective." Alternatives Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2015, pp. 28+. Gale In Context: Environmental Studies.

Liu, Bojie, et al. “Critical Review of Nuclear Power Plant Carbon Emissions.” Frontiers in Energy Research, vol. 11, 19 Sept. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1147016.

Soto, Gonzalo H., and Xavier Martinez-Cobas. “Nuclear Energy Generation’s Impact on the CO₂ Emissions and Ecological Footprint among European Union Countries.” The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 945, no. 173844, Elsevier BV, June 2024, pp. 173844–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173844.

Topal-Namli, Hanife, et al. “Nuclear Power in Turkey: Pros and Cons.” Journal of WEI Business and Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, Dec. 2014, westeastinstitute.com/journals/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/3.Hanife-Topal-Namli-JWEIBE.pdf.