The Forbidden Nuclear Energy


Nuclear Energy use to play a vital role in the past, but now you don’t hear much of the topic. The main things you hear about is the dangers of nuclear power plants, so how dangerous are they? People speak about large amounts of hazardous waste being produce. This was true at one point but there have been revolutionary changes revolving the left-over waste from nuclear power plants. “Nuclear power engineering is connected with the closed NFC, which provides the renewal and regeneration of nuclear fuel resources.” (Myasoedov, B. F., Kalmykov, S. N., Kulyako, Y. M., & Vinokurov, S. E. 2016.) That alone should be enough to help convince environmentalist that nuclear has become cleaner and will benefit our communities. The construction of Nuclear facilities has come to a slow pace since Chernobyl, is it from the fear or just not efficient type of source. I have taken a closer look at this issue and came across some amazing results, the main reason is cost of construction makes nuclear generating station in effective. The fuel is cheap but building costs are higher which in turn makes the average KW/H more expensive then other conventional ways we produce electricity. “whereas reactors ordered during the 1950s took on average about five years to build, whereas reactors ordered during the 1970s took on average 14 years” (Davis, L. W. 2012).  So why has this happened, Studies have shown that the paper work involved is so much it makes filing permits that much harder. In other parts of the world another study about benefits of nuclear generating station, stating the use and construction would bring exponential amount of jobs and growth to a community. “Each plant employs around 700 workers with a payroll cost of $40 million per year” MISLA, R. (2015).


That is a lot of potential income for smaller communities to help fund Civil projects. Environmentalist still have there say that nuclear is bad but what else could be wrong they have improved the usage of fuel, and brings large amount of jobs to the community; the problem they say implementing more nuclear reactors would “will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions” (Can we do without nuclear energy?. 2012). I do not agree with this because in this journal they talk about how much C02 gasses a nuclear reactor can reduce compared to the alternative coal and gas generating stations. “There are alternatives to nuclear, but at a price accounted for 41% of global energy-related C02 emissions in 2010” (Can we do without nuclear energy?. 2012).  Would nuclear energy benefit? I most definitely would like to think it would especially since there is a way to reuse the used-up fuel, making nuclear practically a renewable resource with very little environmental gasses.




MISLA, R. (2015). Nuclear energy: A promising alternative for the economy and the environment. Caribbean Business, 43(22), 25-26.

Myasoedov, B. F., Kalmykov, S. N., Kulyako, Y. M., & Vinokurov, S. E. (2016). Nuclear fuel cycle and its impact on the environment. Geochemistry International, (13), 1156. doi:10.1134/S0016702916130115

Can we do without nuclear energy?. (2012). OECD Observer, 100-101.

Davis, L. W. (2012). Prospects for Nuclear Power. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 49-66. doi:10.1257/jep.26.1.49


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s