Energy sources and their environmental drawbacks: nuclear power risks and alternatives

Energy Drawbacks

Because every energy-producing source has some drawbacks and negative issues, it is important for society to choose wisely when it comes to developing electrical generating sources. This paper reviews those issues.

Wind Energy: there are many advantages to wind energy, including: a) it is non-polluting (no fossil fuels are burned in the process); b) less space is used than by building a big power station (and windmills can be built in agriculture areas because crops can be grown around the base of a windmill); and c) wind energy can bring electrical power to remote areas (Clean Energy Ideas).

Wind Energy: the downside of wind power: a) wind is not always reliable and consistent; b) birds and bats fly into the turbines and are killed; c) there is noise associated with the turbines; and d) rural residents don't like big wind turbines in their previously agrarian environment (Clean Energy Ideas).

Geothermal: the advantages are obvious with this power source: when located away from neighborhoods, geothermal provides consistent and clean energy. But geothermal generating stations entail complicated design issues that are costly, and the area that is actually needed for the piping and other technologies is "quite large" and not always suitable for small developments (Clean Energy Ideas).

Hydroelectric: building dams to create hydroelectric power has plenty of negative aspects. First of all, damning rivers destroys fish habitat and in the case of salmon, damned rivers are a disaster. Also, hydroelectric dams "…produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane," according to New Scientist (Graham-Rowe, 2005). Large amounts carbon "…tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot…plant matter settling on the bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane" (Graham-Rowe).

Nuclear Power: Accidents from nuclear plants cause serious radiation poisoning in humans and even small released of radiation can cause cancer. Radioactive waste is highly radioactive for thousands of years and even the process of mining uranium leaves "mill tailings" which exposes radon to the public (Cohen, 2004).

Fukushima nuclear disaster vs. Chernobyl: Following the massive earthquake and deadly tsunami in Japan in 2011 -- that killed an estimated 20,000 people -- the Fukushima nuclear plant lost electrical power and suffered a catastrophic meltdown. The company that operates the plant (Tepco) has admitted that the disaster could have been avoided. Preparations were not made because "…the firm [Tepco] feared that improvements in safety would highlight the risks" and there was a "…worry that if the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan it would spur anxiety throughout the country…" (McCurry, 2012). There is evidence that fish in the Pacific Ocean, and other species have been contaminated with radiation; but as of today there have been no deaths, according to Don Higson.

Higson writes that while the accident at Fukushima was serious, and some workers received high doses of dangerous radiation, but Chernobyl was "the worst that could happen…there was a full core meltdown" and there was no containment vessel to shield the nearby communities and environment (Higson, 2012). An estimated 4,000 people either died or will die because of Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive iodine-131 escaping from Fukushima "…was less than 10% of the amount released at Chernobyl" and the release of caesium-137 at Fukushima was less than 15% of the total from Chernobyl (Higson, p. 2).