Deck 30: Nuclear Power After Fukushima

Question 1

What is Adams's point of view?

Answer 1

Adam says that nuclear power plants produce clean energy unlike fossil fuel based energy. Everybody knew that nuclear energy comes with immense risks when things go wrong as they did at Fukushima Daichi in Japan.
The damage caused in Fukushima disaster will impose hefty economic costs for Japan. It required a lot of effort to evacuate the people working at the plant and the people living in vicinity of the plant. The radiations spread to areas farther than initially estimated and thousands of people displaced may never be allowed to return home.
It is understandable, says Adam, if questions are raised whether it is prudent to continue with nuclear energy when options are available. However, weighing all pros and cons Adam believes that the world must not abandon nuclear energy.

Question 2

What reasons does he offer to support his point of view?

Answer 2

Nuclear plants come with the hazard of radioactive emission in cases of accidents. It has been proved in Fukushima disaster. But Person A is not convinced that it calls for abandoning nuclear energy altogether. He reminds us that one kilogram of thorium or uranium produces energy equivalent to the energy produced by 2 million kilograms of oil.
Person A reveals that Uranium dioxide is not the only option available as fuel for nuclear reactors. He informs that metal-alloy fuels like uranium or thorium dissolved in fluoride salts are safer fuels for nuclear power plants.
Person A reminds us that competition is not between nuclear energy and clean energy produced by wind mills or solar panels but between nuclear energy and pollution creating sources like gas and oil. He cites the example of Germany which has refused to accept energy produced by nuclear plants but has replaced it with energy produced by coal and oil and even nuclear energy produced in France.
Person A argues that Fukushima accident was a worst-case scenario and is not likely to recur. Also Fukushima plant toll was a primitive decades old plant which did not have adequate safely system against a tsunami of this magnitude. Otherwise, he claims the nuclear energy has an appreciable safety record. He quotes the example of accident in 1952 in an experimental reactor in Canada where President Carter, then Lt. Jimmy Carter, went as a part of the rescue effort and is still alive and healthy.
Thus, Person A concludes that nuclear energy is here to stay as clean and affordable source of energy.

Question 3

Does the point of view of this article complement or contradict Article 26?

Answer 3

The world is looking for alternatives to oil and coal for producing energy. Most of the options are, however not capable of producing the energy at a scale required by energy hungry world. Nuclear energy is a viable option but it requires massive investments which are not forthcoming.
Whatever capabilities of nuclear energy we have developed need to be preserved and not junked due to safety concerns because, as stated earlier, there are not many viable alternative sources available in near future, so this article complements the article 26.