Countries should start using nuclear power as their main source of energy; fossil fuel (i.e. coal, oil and gas) are not goign to last forever and nuclear power is the cheapest alternative. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Countries should start using nuclear power as their main source of energy; fossil fuel (i. e. coal, oil and gas) are not goign to last forever and nuclear power is the cheapest alternative. 6pYWW
There is no doubt that in the contemporary world population started to think about sustainable life and their exploitation of the natural resources in the planet, which leads to the fact that some countries try to consume inexhaustible resources such as windmills, solar batteries, and nuclear sources, in particular. Although nuclear power is thought by some to be a perfect alternative solution for saving the bowels of the earth, opposition groups are vehemently against such A practice. I completely concur with the last view and the following essay will offer reasons to support my stance.
First and foremost, it could be assumed that even if getting energy from a nuclear power plant is one of the cheapest methods, it definitely does not lead to the fact that it is the safest one. This is because the nuclear power in unexpected situations of manufacturing errors could destroy the ecosystem of the area by its poisonous chemicals. In Russian history, for instance, there was a situation when in one city the nuclear power plant come up to be out of control and exploded which ruined the health of many locals not only from Chernobyl, where the catastrophe happened but also from the numerous cities nearby. As a result, the country spent a fortune to recover a public health after radiation and this accident with the thousands of death tolls is not worth saving money on other types of energy sources.
Furthermore, another point to consider is that renewable sources such as water, wind, and sun are substantially safer for workers in the industry and damaging conditions at work are inappropriate from the perspective of corporate social responsibility. By working with nuclear energy employees tend to get injured by radium and as a result, they could be infected with deadly diseases. A good case in point is the recent study conducted by McKinsey and Company which has been suggested that users of the solar batteries feel their involvement in the process of saving the nature which as a result provides them felicity and mental satisfaction and they do not put themselves in danger.
In conclusion, despite the low cost of the nuclear power, I strongly believe that the disadvantages such as damaging influence to the workers and jeopardy in use for the city where it is located are much stronger than any advantages.
There is no doubt that in the contemporary world population
started
to
think
about sustainable life and their exploitation of the natural resources in the planet, which leads to the fact that
some
countries try to consume inexhaustible resources such as windmills, solar batteries, and nuclear sources,
in particular
. Although nuclear
power
is
thought
by
some
to be a perfect alternative solution for saving the bowels of the earth, opposition groups are
vehemently
against such A practice. I completely concur with the last view and the following essay will offer reasons to support my stance.
First
and foremost, it could
be assumed
that even if getting energy from a nuclear
power
plant is one of the cheapest methods, it definitely does not lead to the fact that it is the safest one. This is
because
the nuclear
power
in unexpected situations of manufacturing errors could
destroy
the ecosystem of the area by its poisonous chemicals. In Russian history,
for instance
, there was a situation when in one city the nuclear
power
plant
come
up to be out of control and exploded which ruined the health of
many
locals not
only
from Chernobyl, where the catastrophe happened
but
also
from the numerous cities nearby.
As a result
, the country spent a fortune to recover a public health after radiation and this accident with the thousands of death tolls is not worth saving money on other types of energy sources.
Furthermore
, another point to consider is that renewable sources such as water, wind, and sun are
substantially
safer for workers in the industry and damaging conditions at work are inappropriate from the perspective of corporate social responsibility. By working with nuclear energy employees tend to
get
injured by radium and
as a result
, they could
be infected
with deadly diseases. A
good
case in point is the recent study conducted by McKinsey and
Company
which has
been suggested
that users of the solar batteries feel their involvement in the process of saving the nature which
as a result
provides them felicity and mental
satisfaction and
they do not put themselves in
danger
.
In conclusion
, despite the low cost of the nuclear
power
, I
strongly
believe that the disadvantages such as damaging influence to the workers and jeopardy in
use
for the city where it
is located
are much stronger than any advantages.
Do not write below this line