Tucker Nuclear Summary
In order to remain at the forefront of technological innovation and industrial prowess, the United States must become cognizant that the use of nuclear energy is by far the most efficient policy regarding the creation of power despite the possible risks. This is the belief of William Tucker, the author of the New York Times published article, “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”.
Although the production of nuclear power brings about possible risks, Tucker believes that the concerns regarding the creation of nuclear energy proves idle compared to the risks of other methods of energy production such as ; natural gas, coal mining , and hydroelectric dams. Tucker believes that natural gas production, coal mining, and the use of hydroelectric dams are rarely criticized as being not safe, even though they all have several occurrences of their own version of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. All methods of energy creation come with risks, and Tucker believes that the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the reproductions .
Tucker states that nuclear energy is much more efficient compared to the contemporary methods of energy creation. It takes a substantially smaller amount of resources and time to produce nuclear energy than it does to run a coal mine. The use of nuclear energy would have less of a negative effect on the environment because there are far less raw materials and mines that could pollute the air, water, and land. Tucker believes the production process of harvesting natural gas and turning it into energy is too slow, and is being slowed by government regulations. Tucker argues that natural methods of producing energy such as hydro, wind, and solar are all too reliant on uncontrollable factors, and far less productive even when all factors are ideal.
In order to meet the demands of our society today, and to remain a world power, we must adopt a nuclear energy power. Tucker
Although the production of nuclear power brings about possible risks, Tucker believes that the concerns regarding the creation of nuclear energy proves idle compared to the risks of other methods of energy production such as ; natural gas, coal mining , and hydroelectric dams. Tucker believes that natural gas production, coal mining, and the use of hydroelectric dams are rarely criticized as being not safe, even though they all have several occurrences of their own version of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. All methods of energy creation come with risks, and Tucker believes that the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the reproductions .
Tucker states that nuclear energy is much more efficient compared to the contemporary methods of energy creation. It takes a substantially smaller amount of resources and time to produce nuclear energy than it does to run a coal mine. The use of nuclear energy would have less of a negative effect on the environment because there are far less raw materials and mines that could pollute the air, water, and land. Tucker believes the production process of harvesting natural gas and turning it into energy is too slow, and is being slowed by government regulations. Tucker argues that natural methods of producing energy such as hydro, wind, and solar are all too reliant on uncontrollable factors, and far less productive even when all factors are ideal.
In order to meet the demands of our society today, and to remain a world power, we must adopt a nuclear energy power. Tucker