My first essay; Any advice how to make it better, and tips on writing faster?
|In response to "An analysis of Nuclear Energy;" I have decided to read you information on this topic by reading over the forms of evidence and statement's presented before me. I will also be discussing in detail the benefits and downfalls to nuclear energy, along with that, I will discuss what trumps which in form of how the benefits, and downfalls explained, along with how well they were structured. Now let us begin with the benefits to nuclear energy.
One of the benefits to nuclear energy is promoted by the the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); The DOE believes nuclear power is the answer, and the most efficient way to make electricity compared to fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil. The DOE had used an example from the Idaho National Laboratory, in which the lab reported that “one uranium fuel pellet—roughly the size of the tip of an adult’s little finger—contains the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.” This is a good piece to bring up for the benefits, it explains on how much less that has to be used than other fossil fuels, explaining how little is needed in use of nuclear energy, not only showcasing a way to save other resources, but also explaining how nuclear energy is a good way to help with economy and overall budget, due to the minuscule amounts of Uranium needed in return to the 149 gallons of oil that can be used for cars.
The second benefit is cited by supporters of nuclear energy stating that "nuclear generators don’t create the great amounts of poisonous carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide like the burning of fossil fuels does." The DOE also reported that "a nuclear generator produces 30 tons of spent fuel a year compared to the 300,000 tons of coal ash produced by a coal-powered electrical plant." This benefit corresponds with the first benefit by speaking of money spent, and how a nuclear generator produces more energy, for less resources, and less money; As I said before, the minuscule amount of Uranium needed compared to the amounts of oil for example, is obvious that it will indeed save our country money and resources. The cite was also good to add in the beginning by pointing out that other fossil fuels burning pollutes more with oxides, and dioxides than a nuclear generator does not produce none of this; This is good to bring to attention, bringing awareness to the fact that fossil fuels pollute more poisons than nuclear energy.
Lastly for the benefits, I will speak of the terms of safety. The nuclear Regulatory Commission ensured that "each and every nuclear reactor maintains strict safety standards," along with this the had also ensured "radioactive waste is contained deep underground behind steel-reinforced, 1.2 meter thick concrete walls." The DOE had also pointed out that “ash from burning coal at a power plant emits 100 times more radiation into the surrounding environment than a nuclear power plant.” The DOE further made claims about the poisons that fossil fuels create, by speaking of radiation, this and the continued speaking of safety even more. These things are said not only to further make nuclear energy seem more safe but also continue to notify the problems with fossil fuels as well. Now, moving on, we will start with some deterrents and arguments made against nuclear energy, and ways to counter the problems of both fossil fuels, and nuclear energy.
Starting with reactors, opponents argue the safety of nuclear reactors and how they "endanger all life on Earth" naming the basic reasons" The first one is how "nuclear radioactivity is deadly and must be contained for thousands of years." Second, " no matter how many safety measures are in place, accidents happen, and nuclear meltdowns are global environmental catastrophes." The final reason is said that "nuclear fuel used to generate electricity can also be used to build atomic bombs." These three reasons are solid although I believe the second may be a bit weak but it does get it's point off. Starting with the first, the opponents brought up the deadliness of radioactivity, and how long it must be contained; This being an obvious but well put out statement, coupled with the second where they spoke of safety and accidents. Now, they are right by speaking of accidents, but this is, in a way, paranoid way of putting it, because anything can go wrong in any situation, never less, it still gives structure to the first reason because they had spoken of the deadliness of radiation. Lastly the final reason, being the worry of the fuel being used will be turned into nuclear bombs; This is self explanatory to be honest, anyone should fear the evils that can be done with nuclear weaponry.
They continued their argument about safety, and the deadliness of nuclear energy by going into details on the fuel it uses such as plutonium, and uranium starting with scientists. The scientist had stated that "exposure to a millionth of an ounce of plutonium causes cancer," showing how deadly this source of energy can be when even exposed by such minuscule amount, furthering the opponents stance and structure on how deadly this source of energy is, really getting their point across as even the nuclear energy proponents agree that is life threatening, a mistake for them seeing that it make's everything they said about safety earlier redundant in a way, and poorly expressed.
The opponents continued to pick at the safety topic by citing "the ever-present threat of meltdowns." They spoke of widespread radioactive contamination, and the deaths it had caused from nuclear accidents that had happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, stating them as "Cautionary lessons." Researchers had disagreed on how possible it is to "safely contain radioactivity" bringing up undeniable facts about how nuclear meltdowns cause widespread contamination of air, water, and land, filling the areas with deadly radioactivity not to mention that it is verifiable to connect nuclear accidents to causes of environmental catastrophes that continue to this day, continuing the strong deterring factors to this fuels source making nuclear energy seem far too deadly to use.
I would like to move onto a new subject that doesn't speak of the deadliness of nuclear energy but apparently it doesn't end. More deadly factors are put into this topic by speaking of the use of uranium, and how it can be used for "sinister purposes" even without going into detail, many people already know that nuclear weapons have caused the worst of all catastrophes in this world literally wiping an entire area and radiating it to disastrous levels, which also causes damage to our world. The opponents use a report from December 7, 2013, Reuters reported that "in news that may concern world powers…Iran is moving ahead with testing more efficient uranium enrichment technology," it's not hidden that there has been tension within all countries in some way or form with one another, such as right now we hear on the media that Russia and Ukraine are having some shall we say "disagreements," but that will be saved for another topic, seeing that obviously we're speaking of Iran working with uranium, which causes the United Nations, and the entire world to be unnerved by hearing this. For the most part, this covers the safety bit, moving onto the the final argument and in my opinion the best counter to what the proponents had stated earlier.
This by far is the best counter to everything said about nuclear energy; The opponents had acknowledged that fossil fuels are limited, and also destroys the environment, in which they counter this, and everything said earlier about fossil fuels; The proponents had suggested a more safe, cleaner, and renewable source of energy, the alternatives being solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal power; I will say again this is a great way to fix problems with both fossil fuels, and energy; The proponents get all their points across well, and suggest a better and safe alternative to energy. Now, let us move on to my conclusion on this topic, where I will discuss who had made the better statements, arguments, and points.
To me, the most well supported argument was the opponents, not only for discussing the deterrents to nuclear energy, but also suggesting alternatives to fossil fuels. The proponents had put together too much about bringing down fossil fuels in which it was all brought down by the suggestion of safe energy options, such as wind. The proponents had also how you say, Shot themselves in the foot by even agreeing with the opponents on the deadliness of radiation at one point; All in all, they proponents were not structured well enough compared to the opponents, and all their points were shot down, thus making the Opponents the most supported in this debate.