Nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

Nuclear energy is a reasonable approach to generating electricity based on the fact that it is far superior to most forms of power generating methods currently in use. Nuclear fission plants have been shown to be more: a) Environmentally friendly. b) Sustainable. c) Economical. d) Efficient. Furthermore, they: a) Improve energy security. b) Encourage and convenience research conducted in atomic theory. My first argument is the Environmental factor that sets nuclear energy apart as a more reasonable approach to creating electricity. Each year, a coal power plant will produce 125,000 tonnes of ash and 193,000 tonnes of sludge.[1] Very toxic waste. This rubbish is then sent straight out into the environment courtesy of the humans who made it. In Australia, where I live, most of the country is run by coal plants. Why? Because some 'green' people do not want to see a start to a new era of cleaner energy. Instead, they advocate the immense destruction of our atmosphere with the dozens of coal plants that spit out all these toxins constantly. This waste they give out is far worse than nuclear radioactive waste. Nuclear waste will eventually decay until it is no longer harmful. Fossil fuel waste doesn't decay. It just hangs around until it destroys something. Now, compare what we do with these waste: Nuclear: Deposit it in sealed containers in deep repositories that will have no contact with any part of the eco system. Fossil fuel: Dump the sludge waste in landfill sites and send the CO2 into the atmosphere. This is rather appalling. We pay so much attention to what we think is dangerous that we miss the actual danger that is slapping us in the face. Furthermore, Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.[2] Everyone else just doesn't seem to care. Secondly, Nuclear power is so sustainable, it has the ability to last us until we definitely need it no longer. With modern-day technology, we can potential use nuclear energy for 30,000 years. We will only need nuclear for a few hundred, but the implications are enormous. Instead of digging up the last of the coal we have and burning it, we can extract a little bit of Uranium from the earth and use that to power us until we have the ability to reach nuclear fusion or any other completely clean energy source. Compared to coal plants, where we have to burn 250,000 tonnes of coal PER DAY. I'd say we have a pretty good chance if we chose to go down the nuclear instead. We definitely won't survive much longer on coal. Thirdly, Nuclear power is far more economical in the long run versus coal and oil plants. For a start, it is the cheapest form of power available. The National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report said that the cost of nuclear power is equal to or lower than natural gas, wind, solar, or coal with carbon capture. Reactors can operate for 80 years, while wind and solar last about 25 years. And nuclear reactors operate 90 percent of the time, while wind and solar are only available about a third of the time. [3] (Remember: wind and solar power can't be stored today in significant amounts.) Most people don't want their lights and computers working only when the wind blows. Fourthly, Nuclear power plants are a couple thousand times more efficient than conventional coal plants. Nuclear power turns 98% of the fuel into heat, [4] which is used in the electrical generating process. Of the remaining 2%, 40% of it is treated and turned back into usable fuel. The remaining 1% is the waste. In a coal plant, 65-75% of the fuel is turned into heat and the rest is waste product. That is an astounding difference that should make you cry. If that doesn't, then this will: for every 15 tonnes of waste produced in a nuclear plant, a coal plant will spit out 500 million tonnes. That is a giant win for nuclear power in terms of efficiency. So how can one say that it is an unreasonable approach? Have a look at these quick facts about nuclear energy: http://www.nei.org... Fithly, Nuclear power plants are on average, safer to humans than coal and oil. Since I live in Australia, I don't have to worry too much about dangerous air pollutants, though they are an increasing problem, but in 2000, the Ontario Medical Association declared air pollution "a public health crisis" [4] and coal-fired power plants as the single largest industrial contributors to this crisis, producing carbon dioxide, fine particulates, and cancerous heavy metals including mercury. In 2005, the Ontario Medical Association estimated that air pollution costs the province more than six hundred million dollars per year in health care costs, as well as causing the premature deaths of thousands of Ontarians each year [5].[6] Australia is soon to be Ontario if coal burning keeps up like this. Many places in the world are already worse than Ontario. China for instance, has air pollution in some cities that can be seen from upper orbit. Air pollution is indeed a grave problem on a global scale. Across the world 850,000 people are known to die prematurely because of it.[7]. Lastly, Nuclear power plants help the development of more cleaner and efficient uses of nuclear energy namely, nuclear fusion. In a talk on energy and climate entitled, "Innovating to Zero", Microsoft's Bill Gates gives a compelling argument for why we need nuclear power in an age of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 [8]. Using a simple equation, he argues that CO2 is a product of the number of people on the planet, the services delivered per person, the energy needed per service, and the amount of CO2 produced by each unit of energy. The first two are heading up and are unlikely to be stopped. The cost of energy is decreasing, but not enough. So that leaves the fourth factor. We must use energy that does not produce greenhouse gases, but we need reliable energy – energy that's available when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Gates believes that nuclear power offers this promise and should be part of the mix, especially if improved (safer) technology is employed. Energy conservation should be a viable way to transition from dirty to clean energy, but increases in services delivered per person along with a growing population would quickly eat up conservation savings. So think of nuclear power like a bridge. its not what we want forever, but we cant stay with what we have for long, and we cant get what we need for the future now, so while we wait, we use the best alternative we can muster. Since that is the purpose of nuclear power, we can definitely call it a reasonable approach to generating electricity for the time being. [1]http://www.ucsusa.org... [2]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [3]http://www.usnews.com... [4]http://www.nei.org... [5]http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca... [6]https://www.oma.org... [7]http://suzukielders.wordpress.com... [8]Estimated deaths & DALYs attributable to selected environmental risk factors, by WHO Member State, 2002World Health Organization Organisation mondiale de la Santï¿½ Department of Public Health & Environnment January 2007 [9]http://www.ted.com...