Why should nuclear power plants be maintained despite their risks?

The risks of nuclear power have been recognized since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, but nuclear power plants should be maintained given their improved safety, lower costs, and higher efficiency.

 

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima, Japan, destroyed a nuclear power plant, resulting in a strong radiation leak. People exposed to the radiation were much more likely to develop cancer and became victims of mental illness. Since this event, there has been a lot of debate about whether nuclear power plants should continue, with many people opposing them because of the dangers of nuclear power. However, I believe that nuclear power plants should be maintained because their benefits far outweigh their risks. Let’s take a closer look at the benefits of nuclear power plants.
The first is that nuclear power can be more reliable over time. After the events at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the risks of nuclear power have become more widely recognized. This has raised awareness of the need for better solutions, which will lead to the development of safer nuclear power systems in the future. This event has made it clear to plant design professionals the problems that can occur in nuclear power plants, and focusing on preventing these events when designing future plants will lead to safer plants. In fact, the tsunami that hit Fukushima was twice the height of the waves that the plant could withstand, which is why it was destroyed and energy supply was interrupted. Natural disasters of this magnitude don’t happen often, but it’s something that should have been considered when designing the plant. As a result, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed improving the safety design of power plants to account for the damage caused by flooding every 10 years. The NRC has also created a regulation that requires nuclear power plants to install systems to ensure that they can remain safe for at least three days without external power. For example, in 1979, a nuclear power plant in the United States experienced an accident due to a power generation system failure. The plant building was nearly destroyed, but no nuclear radiation was released because of the safety systems in place. These examples show that protective systems to prevent radiation leakage are getting better every day, which should reduce safety concerns to some extent.
The second reason to maintain nuclear power plants is cost savings. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build, just like fossil fuel plants, but nuclear power has the advantage of being much cheaper to operate. One reason for the lower operating costs is that fuel costs are much lower. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the cost of nuclear fuel is only 30% of the cost of coal fuel and 20-25% of the cost of gas fuel. This allows nuclear-generated electricity to be sold at a lower price, making it economically competitive and, in the long run, more favorable than coal and gas generation. Furthermore, because nuclear energy requires only a small amount of uranium to produce a large amount of energy, it is easier, faster, and less expensive to transport, as no large trucks or machinery are needed to transport the fuel. In the end, nuclear fuel is more socially and economically beneficial because it allows for maximum energy production from a smaller amount of natural resources.
While nuclear power has no byproducts that can directly pollute the environment, it does leave behind radioactive waste. Opponents of nuclear power argue that nuclear power is dangerous because there are many questions about how to dispose of radioactive waste. To refute this, it’s worth taking a look at the disposal of nuclear waste according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), an international nuclear organization. 95% of the waste from nuclear power generation is uranium-238. For the first 40 to 50 years, this waste is stored mainly in water because it gives off a lot of heat due to its radioactive activity. Currently, uranium-238 from nuclear power generation is stored in artificial ponds at power plants, so it doesn’t affect the ocean. The waste is then buried underground after it becomes less radioactive. The landfill site is chosen to minimize the impact on living organisms by choosing an area that is not suitable for the survival conditions of plants and animals. With these specific and safe waste disposal methods in place, I believe that nuclear power plants should be allowed to continue.
The final reason I think nuclear power plants should be kept is that nuclear power is much more efficient than other renewable energy alternatives. Renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy, is an environmentally friendly way to produce energy, but it is not as efficient as nuclear power. To compare power output, nuclear power can produce about 12,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity per day, while wind power can only produce 60 MWh per turbine per day. And to produce the same amount of power, wind farms require about 108,000 acres of land, while nuclear power requires only 1,100 acres. In addition, neither solar nor wind power can generate power depending on the weather. For example, if the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing hard enough, renewable energy can’t be generated. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, can operate around the clock, except during maintenance, and can operate in harsh weather.
In conclusion, many people oppose nuclear energy production because of the potential for radiation leaks, but as research continues, safer nuclear power systems will be developed. It also has many advantages over currently known renewable energy sources and traditional power generation methods. Nuclear power plants are the most efficient way to generate energy today, and with proper safety measures, they could be a great solution to our current oil depletion problem. Therefore, I agree that we should keep nuclear power plants.