Other views on nuclear energy

To cure oil addiction , America needs more nuclear energy. A survey last year with the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Paris shows that in the United States, 40% of people think that atomic energy is safe and supportive of construction. new factories; 29% said that active nuclear power plants are no problem, but they oppose the construction of new plants; and 20% said nuclear power plants are dangerous and want to close all factories.

The survey in 18 countries, rich and poor, shows that, in the US, nuclear energy is viewed more favorably than any other country surveyed (except Korea). Since 1978, the United States has not built any new nuclear power plants. Even in France, the amount of electricity produced from nuclear energy accounts for a high percentage, only 25% of the respondents are supporters of building more factories and 50% say enough, there should be no further construction.

(Photo: state.pa.us) The issue of nuclear energy is currently recovering in the world. In 2005, 8 nuclear power plants were in turn put into operation. A factory in Ontario, (Canada), was restarted after a long period of closure. Globally, 443 nuclear power plants are operating. Recently, US President Bush issued a 'Superior Energy Initiative ' which proposed to invest in building more coal-fired power plants without greenhouse gas emissions; revolutionizing solar and wind technology; and clean, safe nuclear energy. In the Federal Message, Bush said nuclear power is a clean, renewable energy that can meet 50% of America's electricity demand by 2025.

For Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace movement said that nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to future energy needs. We cannot solve the energy problem just by wind and solar power. These two energy sources are very expensive to invest, more importantly, this energy supply is intermittent, because there is only electricity when there is wind or the sun shines. Economies that need energy can supply electricity continuously.

Coal can be a constant source of energy. But 1,300 coal power plants in the US emit 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. So do we want more greenhouse gases to change the earth's climate?

With courage and support from the Bush Administration and the Senate, US power companies are promoting the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Frank Bowman - Director of the Washington Institute of Nuclear Energy said 9 companies, complexes or partnerships have planned to build 20 new nuclear power plants, at least 12-14. factories in 10 states.

With the new process of granting nuclear power plant construction and operation licenses, the industry hopes to submit its investment profile to the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NRC) next year and receive a permit to enter. in 2010.

Overall, it took a decade to prepare and build, of which building a factory took 4 years. By 2025, the United States will have an additional 30,000 MW of electricity produced by nuclear power plants, equivalent to the capacity of 30 to 50 coal power plants.

Other countries are also in need of additional nuclear power. In November 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, would seriously consider building new nuclear reactors.

The province of Ontario, (Canada) has decided to restart the two reactors of Bruce's nuclear power plant to increase the generating capacity for the Pickering plant commissioned in 2005.

Pakistan wants to buy 6 to 8 nuclear reactors with a capacity of 600 MW each in the next decade.

Germany plans to shut down all nuclear power plants in 2020. But the gas price war between Russia and Ukraine has recently passed and between Russia and Belarus, plus oil and gas prices continue to rise and supply from The Persian Gulf and Russia are also unstable, making Germany and other countries think again.

Mr. Patrick Moore
(Photo: Richardkeilphotography)

China plans to build 27 new nuclear power plants by 2020 compared to nine existing plants. And it will continue, because China also recognizes that energy sources are problematic. Coal mining is dangerous. Hydroelectric dams can cause environmental damage. Mine gas is explosive. Oil is expensive. All fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases. Wind power is noisy and propellers can destroy birds.

According to Patrick Moore, the danger associated with nuclear energy is just exaggeration. Less than 60 people were killed in nuclear power incidents, but no one in the US has died of a nuclear power accident.

An international mission comprised of more than 100 of the most serious incident scientists at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, (Ukraine) occurred in 1986. The September 2005 report showed that there were only nearly 4,000 people died of radioactive contamination, previously predicted to be 300,000 dead.

Terrorists can fly planes down to nuclear power plants. But a modern nuclear power plant cannot be punctured. The wall of reactor walls is 6 feet thick, reinforced with steel plates one inch thick inside and outside. Even a suicide group could penetrate into the reactor space, the plant could not explode. Radiation can spread, but these radiation rays are rapidly weakened and they become less dangerous. Patrick Moore said that.

In fact, liquefied gas power plants are even more risky when attacked by planes, which can create a giant fireball.

Patrick Moore supports energy conservation, energy efficiency, and alternative energy sources. Nuclear energy is important to provide enough electricity in the future. Nuclear weapons proliferation is a separate content that requires real attention.

Tran Minh Huan (Page 45- Science and Technology January 2007)