No on Nuclear Power Plants

No 100 percent, sanitary energy source on Earth exists; included nuclear power. Nuclear power forms when an uranium atom splits into minute particles, and releases a tremendous amount of energy - used to create electricity. In the process of generating nuclear power, pollution in the form of radioactive waste configures. The radioactive waste continues to stay harmful towards humans and animals, and can cause mutations. A nuclear power plant should not be built at the southeastern corner of the state because it remains overpriced, the negative impact on wildlife, and the possibilities of dangerous outcomes due to the nuclear power plants. To start off, building a nuclear power plant prevails as an expensive alternative energy source. According to What is Nuclear Power? published by thinkquest, the reactors also have a very expensive capital outlay in the beginning... (page 3). The construction costs may even plunge the state into debt. It would transpire if the state exceeds its credit limit. Although the price becomes cheaper in the long-run, the state may drown in debt just after the first payment. Furthermore, other energy sources have a lower production price than nuclear energy. Based on The Truth About Nuclear Power by Veronique de Rugy, producing nuclear energy remains a very costly business and it costs 14% more than gas to produce a unit of electricity... (page 1-2). The article provides the fact that nuclear power cost 30% more than coal to produce a single unit of energy. Therefore, nuclear energy cannot even begin to compare with coal and natural gas in cost. In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of nuclear power on wildlife remains a concern. It is proven that all known forms of energy affect the environment. The piece, 10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power, published by Joanna Burgess, maintains that toxic by-products make it impossible to reuse surrounding land when a plant is decommissioned (page 3). Therefore, once a nuclear power plants waste has impacted the land, the potential of withdrawing the land rises. Besides, a potential radiation leakage would harm the surrounding animals and plants. Furthermore, the privilege of a risk-free world continues as a fantasy. According to The Truth About Nuclear Power by Veronique de Rugy, future technologies may reduce the chance of some terrible disaster but it wont ever eliminate it completely (page 3). That proves that just like every other energy source, nuclear power has its dangers and risks. Moreover, nuclear plants require enormous volumes of water for heating a cooling. The filters could drawn in microscopic sea animals into cooling systems. In similar fashion, the filter may suck larger sea animals, like sea turtles. Ultimately, the possibilities of dangerous outcomes due to nuclear power plants also contribute to why a plant should not be built. Human error is inevitable. Since power plants run manually by people, the fact that someone may make a mistake will always remain unavoidable. In the article, The Truth About Nuclear Power, Veronique de Rugy explains

that nuclear power has the potential to be very lethal in certain circumstances (page 3). Again, as stated before, nuclear energy will never be completely risk-free. On top of that, it has been verified that about 268 counties near reactors had ten times the national average of breast cancer. Leukemia and breast cancer have been documented near nuclear plants. To make nuclear power look even more miserable, 10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power says that radioactive waste crawling through the ground can cause several million gallons of contaminated water reaching drinking wells (page 3). If people drink from those contaminated wells, they might get mutations, or even die. A fraction of people may believe that nuclear power would be a positive thing for the state. In some cases, people say that nuclear power is renewable. Based on What is Nuclear Power? by thinkquest,...it doesnt use fossil fuels or other non-renewable resources in the production of energy (page 3). They believe that nuclear power would be the most sagacious option for a renewable resource. Another opposition people have against nuclear energy may be that compared to any other energy source, nuclear energy produced a significant amount of kilowatts. Joanna Burgess, author of 10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power wrote that as more plants are built, its expected that construction costs will come down, making the price of nuclear-generated electricity more attractive (page 2). Supporters of nuclear energy feel that with nuclear power plants, more energy can be generated for less money. They may think that more job options would open up. Finally, other oppositions of going against nuclear power could include that with more nuclear energy, other forms of energy sources would not be consumed. As Veronique de Rugy wrote in The Truth About Nuclear Power, people think that ...more nuclear power would mean less coal, less natural gas, less hydroelectric power, and less wind energy (page 5). Those people determine that when nuclear power become the main energy source, other energy options consumption would decrease, but they forgot about how much oil would be used. As of now, it seems unlikely that a risk-free energy source exists. With creation of nuclear power, a biodegradable, radioactive waste forms. The waste unfailingly remains harmful to living things. The nuclear power plant should not be built at the southeastern corner of the state due to the facts that it is very costly, the negative impact on wildlife, and the number of dangerous outcomes due to the nuclear power plants.