Recently, many scientists are concerned about nuclear energy, which can actually be the most dangerous weapon to humans. Also, I think nuclear energy can't benefit people entirely.
There are people who support nuclear energy, and they mainly suggest three arguments. Their first argument is that nuclear energy is economical. They say that nuclear energy is not very expensive in the long-term. The nuclear power plants cost much money, however, they insist that Uranium, the main component of nuclear energy, is much cheaper than oil and coal. It is right because when we see Newton, the science magazine, we can know that the average cost of the nuclear power(10 years term) plant in Korea is about 20 billion dollars, while the average cost of the (fossil fuel) plants in Korea is about 72 billion dollars.
Also their second argument is that nuclear energys environmentally-friendly. They insist that the CO2 emission that occurs when we bulid a nuclear power plant is much lower than the plants that are generated by oil and coal. According to the IAEA's research, 0.2 tons of CO2 is emitted when we build one nuclear power plant while the CO2 emission of the fossil fuel plants are 0.87 tons. Also it is good to prevent any polltion that occurs by its components.
Finally, their third argument is that nuclear energy is safe. For exemplification, they insists that there is Torume nuclear power plant. It is a nuclear power plant that is safe. I accept these facts, however, they forgot something important. Actually, I have three counter arguments to rebut their arguments.
My first argment would be "non-economical". As I said, they forgot something. Torume, the nuclear power plant which is safe, is not cheap. It is even much expensive than the fossil fuel power plant. It costs 20 billion dollars to build, and it costs 5 billion dollars to sustain it safe per year. It is because they have to include more devices when they want to make the nuclear power plant safer. It makes us invest more money. Actually, When this form of safe nuclear power plant is built, the most important feature of the nuclear energy "economical" would would disappear.It means that its feature "safe" and "economical" can't stand together.
My second counter argument is mainly about "non-environmentally-friendly". I think the nuclear power plant is effective at deceasing CO2 emissions. However, when we consider the fact that the radioactive substances, which are from nuclear power plants, can harm the plants. Then, the animals will be harmed, too. Also, we can't escape from the accident possibilities. When the radioactive substances come out of nuclear power plant, it will destroy the entire surrounding system.
Finally, my third counter argument is about my criteria on using nature. It will be a little controversial, however I'll reveal it. I think using nature must be limited in ways that do not harm the nature. Nuclear power plant has possibilities that can harm the nature entirely, and I think it must be limited, too.
There are people who suggest nuclear energy because of its economical(when it is not safe), environmentally-friendly features, and oppose nuclear energy because of its "non- economical(when it is safer than usual)", "non-environmentally-friendly" features. As you see, nuclear energy is a potential weapon that can kill all the people on the world. That is the reason why I strongly oppose nuclear energy.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기