The first point of view covers the side that is against nuclear energy. Many opponents of nuclear energy cite disasters such as the meltdowns such as Fukushima and Chernobyl as prime examples as to why we should not use nuclear energy. According to the website “Arguments for and Against Nuclear Power,” “the 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear power is clearly fundamentally unsafe. The meltdown at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was the worst since Chernobyl in Ukraine, 25 years earlier. Public investment in nuclear energy far out-strips investment in renewables. Nuclear plants are also expensive to set up and decommission, and the costs of storing radioactive waste (effectively indefinitely) also have to be considered. If the money pumped into nuclear had been spent on renewables, then the payoff would have been much greater per-euro invested.” This evidence shows that not only does the nuclear waste threaten human health, but also illustrates the economic problems associated with nuclear disasters. Opponents of nuclear energy advocate for other sources of renewable energy such as wind, solar, or hydroelectric energy.
While the second point of view is pro the use of nuclear energy. Proponents of nuclear energy refutes these meltdowns with the claim that older facilities were inadequate, not the actual nuclear source of energy. Proponents argue that the technology is safe, and it’s getting safer. Fukushima was an old plant, and the latest generation of nuclear reactor designs is much less likely to meltdown. In addition, according to the website “arguments for and against nuclear power,” “earthquakes and tsunamis of the sort that caused the Fukushima disaster are much less common in Europe.” Therefore, some proponents argue that we just need to move the facilities to safer locations. In fact, according to the website “Arguments for and against nuclear power - Debating Europe,” “we could be producing 100% of our energy from renewables by 2050, and the technology is already ready for market – particularly if the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear are cut. Furthermore, if we don’t start using renewable now then we may never make the switch, so this is the chance to take that first step.” These proponents claim that the environmental good from nuclear outweighs the possible negative consequences.
While the second point of view is pro the use of nuclear energy. Proponents of nuclear energy refutes these meltdowns with the claim that older facilities were inadequate, not the actual nuclear source of energy. Proponents argue that the technology is safe, and it’s getting safer. Fukushima was an old plant, and the latest generation of nuclear reactor designs is much less likely to meltdown. In addition, according to the website “arguments for and against nuclear power,” “earthquakes and tsunamis of the sort that caused the Fukushima disaster are much less common in Europe.” Therefore, some proponents argue that we just need to move the facilities to safer locations. In fact, according to the website “Arguments for and against nuclear power - Debating Europe,” “we could be producing 100% of our energy from renewables by 2050, and the technology is already ready for market – particularly if the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear are cut. Furthermore, if we don’t start using renewable now then we may never make the switch, so this is the chance to take that first step.” These proponents claim that the environmental good from nuclear outweighs the possible negative consequences.