NUCLEAR ENERGY
Nuclear Energy as the Most Practical Alternative for Industrialized Countries in the Last Thirty Years
Students: Nguyen Van Anh Le Thi Toan
Instructor: Ho Quynh Giang
Class: 4A11, English Department, Hanoi University
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Body
1. Arguments
Solution to Global Energy Crises
an Environmentally Friendly Energy
2. Counterarguments
Potentially Fatal Risks and Catastrophes
III. Conclusion
Nuclear Energy as the Most Practical Alternative for Industrialized Countries in the Last Thirty Years
The industrial revolution in the twentieth century changed humankind’s civilization significantly with a variety of advanced technologies, especially the great breakthroughs in nuclear energy. In the survey of the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) and the world health organization (WHO), some countries with insubstantial resources such as France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, ect. heavily relied on nuclear energy and the share of nuclear energy for electricity generation in these countries is expected to grow to 70-80% by 2000 . According to Passero , nuclear energy should be supported by environmentalists to reduce global warming and to meet the increasing global demand for electricity. While some antinuclear scientists insist that nuclear industry is a misleading propaganda campaign , there is a greater number of people believing in the perspective of nuclear energy. In an opinion poll in Sweden, where they voted 20 years ago to close the nuclear power plants, 80 % were in favor of nuclear . In other words, nuclear energy should be more fostered.
Firstly, nuclear power is the answer for the ever-increasing demand for energy of human being in the near future. According to Ritch , within the next 50 years, the global energy consumption would increase by 100% or even 200%. Experts believed that the current world oil, coal, and natural gas reserves were not enough to supply the expanding demand . Moreover, according
Students: Nguyen Van Anh Le Thi Toan
Instructor: Ho Quynh Giang
Class: 4A11, English Department, Hanoi University
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Body
1. Arguments
Solution to Global Energy Crises
an Environmentally Friendly Energy
2. Counterarguments
Potentially Fatal Risks and Catastrophes
III. Conclusion
Nuclear Energy as the Most Practical Alternative for Industrialized Countries in the Last Thirty Years
The industrial revolution in the twentieth century changed humankind’s civilization significantly with a variety of advanced technologies, especially the great breakthroughs in nuclear energy. In the survey of the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) and the world health organization (WHO), some countries with insubstantial resources such as France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, ect. heavily relied on nuclear energy and the share of nuclear energy for electricity generation in these countries is expected to grow to 70-80% by 2000 . According to Passero , nuclear energy should be supported by environmentalists to reduce global warming and to meet the increasing global demand for electricity. While some antinuclear scientists insist that nuclear industry is a misleading propaganda campaign , there is a greater number of people believing in the perspective of nuclear energy. In an opinion poll in Sweden, where they voted 20 years ago to close the nuclear power plants, 80 % were in favor of nuclear . In other words, nuclear energy should be more fostered.
Firstly, nuclear power is the answer for the ever-increasing demand for energy of human being in the near future. According to Ritch , within the next 50 years, the global energy consumption would increase by 100% or even 200%. Experts believed that the current world oil, coal, and natural gas reserves were not enough to supply the expanding demand . Moreover, according
References: Arms, K. (1994). Environment science (2nd Ed.). Texas: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bily, C.A. (2006). Global warming: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press. Blix, H. (1989). Nuclear energy and the environment. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Caldicott, H. (2006). Nuclear power is not the energy of the future. In B. Passero (Ed.), Energy alternatives (pp. 72-77): Greenhaven press. IAEA, & WHO. (1982). Nuclear power, the environment and man: International atomic energy agency Vienna. McKinney, M.L., & Schoch, R.M. (1998). Environmental science (systems and solutions): Jones & Bartlett Publisher. Moore, P. (2006a). Nuclear energy is a safe alternative to fossil fuels. In B. Passero (Ed.), Energy alternatives (pp. 79-87). Michigan: Greenhaven Press. Moore, P. (2006b). Nuclear power benefits the environment. In D. Gunkel (Ed.), Alternative energy sources (pp. 74-81): Greenhaven press. Mounfield, P.R. (1991). World nuclear power (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. Povey, K.D. (2007). Hot topics _ energy alternative: Lucent Books. Ritch, J. (2006). Nuclear power is the energy of the future. In B. Passero (Ed.), Energy alternatives (pp. 64-71): Greenhaven Press. Wynn, J. (2007). Nuclear power will help reduce global warming. In D. Minkel (Ed.), Global warming (pp. 46-49): Greenhaven Press.