Nuclear #3: Necessary?

The other day, we looked at the continuing problems caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. Though TEPCO is making good progress in the clean up, the people of Fukushima are still suffering. This situation will continue for many, many years, and will continue to be terribly expensive for Japanese taxpayers. Therefore, Nuclear Power is too dangerous and countries should not use it, right? Let’s consider this more carefully.

Everyone knows that climate change is a serious problem and that our use of “fossil fuels” is largely responsible. The rising earth temperature will change the way we live within your lifespans. Let’s look at a recent report from some of the world’s top scientists.

And if we get to +4?

Where will your kids live?

What does climate change have to do with Nuclear Energy? Watch this TED talk and find out.

Questions for Reflection

Write a two-paragraph response in the reply below. In the first paragraph, summarize the speaker’s main points. Make sure to include:

  • He says that we need nuclear power to solve climate change. Why does he think this?
  • What evidence does he give?

In the second paragraph, give your opinions about the talk. Make sure to include:

  • How persuasive (strong or weak) is his argument?
  • Why do you think so?
  • What are some questions you have after hearing his talk?

16 thoughts on “Nuclear #3: Necessary?

  1. The outlook for carbon dioxide emissions over the next 30 years shows that carbon dioxide will continue to increase. There is already 550 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and in 30 years it is expected that there will be 850 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which will result in an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s surface, sea level, and ocean acidification. The major emitter of these carbon dioxide is the developing countries, represented by China and India. In particular, China still plans to continue to use coal (fossil fuel), and will build 800 gigawatts of coal plants and 200 gigawatts of nuclear power plants by 2040, and already implement these plans. Against this backdrop, it is important and urgent to create a technology to replace fossil fuels to prevent the use of fossil fuels in China and India in time. Such a new technique shall meet the following conditions, called the Chaindia test. 1. New technologies are technically available in countries such as China and India, and must be accepted by the people. 2. It should be a scalable technology, and it should be given to the people as much as the benefits of fossil fuels. 3. Cost effectiveness should be high. But speaker says there is no perfect alternative yet to satisfy the test, but said the closest technology to meeting the conditions of the test is multi-purpose solar energy backed by nuclear power and natural gas. Speaker said that nuclear technology could provide 1 KW of electricity for one hour at a low cost of 5 cents, and could provide 100 GW of electricity for one year, and these technologies could be offered on a scale up to 2030. Therefore, we should be given the belief that nuclear technology can be provided to us safely and cheaply, away from the regulations and preconceptions about nuclear power.

    I think Speaker has well explained how quickly the technology to replace fossil fuels needs to be created and how much that means to the climate change we are currently facing. But I think the new technology lacks grounds to support the fact that it must be nuclear and solar energy. This is because I believe that the description of nuclear technology has not been detailed in accordance with the three items in the Chaindia test. I didn’t really understand the new nuclear power sector from Speaker’s words. I believe that there is a lack of mathematical indicators (i.e., a detailed description of the rationale) of how likely the new nuclear technology could be to be implemented in India and China, and how much profit it would have when compared with fossil fuels and how much cost-effectiveness it would have. Finally, what I would like to learn more from this talk is that as I said above, I would like to hear a detailed explanation of the new nuclear power sector.

    Like

    1. The amount of the co2 around the world will grow fast in next 30years.Carbon dioxide emissions have to literally go to zero to climate .Because it is the cumulative emissions that drive heating in the planet.Then our race to fossil fuels will be lose.The growing of bulk coming from the developing countries such as India,China .They are not a little amount but Tons.Nearly 10giga tons of carbon per year, are added to the planet.After 30 years it would be 850 gigs tons of carbon.
      I think the the above things by the speaker given strongly and clearly to the audience.I think he has an ability to make others to think so and me too think nuclear power is better to solve climate changes.

      Like

  2. To reduce carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, we need new energy and developed countries have chosen options. China’s choice was coal, and coal must suffer much more than other countries, and they continue to use coal energy because they are not rich. Coal does nothing to generate global warming, but China continues to build coal plants. Other advanced countries say they should use nuclear power to create a wide range of options for use. As a result, nuclear power generation is needed because the experimental period is not long and energy supply is possible in 2025.

    His lecture clearly states the solution to the global warming problem with solid data and compelling grounds. So I could easily accept and sympathize with the problem. In particular, the realistic saying that it is acceptable and that it should be changed immediately was persuasive. Eight years have passed since the Fukushima nuclear power plant exploded, but we are still suffering a lot of damage and are looking forward to great damage in the future The damage is worse than expected, especially the radiation problem. As he said, how do we prepare for accidents if we use nuclear energy instead of coal, and if something like this happens today, we will have more problems than we do now, how do we deal with it?

    Like

  3. Joe Lassiter is insisting that new nuclear power plants be allowed to be introduced. Developing countries such as India and China use a lot of coal, which is a cheap resource. This is because there are no various options due to the cost problem. Coal is one of the reasons for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions More options should be provided through nuclear power plants currently under development to avoid serious environmental problems. And by doing so, we have to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.New nuclear power is a good option for developing countries in that it can be introduced as soon as possible and available by 2030. He argues that a new nuclear power plant should be built as a countermeasure, as rising sea levels and temperatures are predicted if carbon dioxide emissions increase further.

    I think it’s persuasive.I didn’t think about the real problem but assumed that I was just building a new nuclear power plant to reduce carbon dioxide. Then, I thought it was very effective in reducing carbon dioxide. It provides new options for developing countries and can be used for longer periods of time than other resources. And many people can live comfortably and will not harm the environment. That’s because I think it’s good for the environment. I just wonder if there is a solution to the safety problem.

    Like

  4. 1
    ・We must reduse CO2 emissions ,so we can not use coals and poor nations have not options.
    ・Newclear power plants can build early and can be big.
    2
    ・「Chindia Test」
    1
    ・strong
    2
    ・I think that he shows concrete figures when he talk he’s opinion every time.
    3
    ・Do New newclear power plant’s skills have danger?

    Like

  5. If fossil fuels such as coal and oil continue to be used, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase. This increases the average temperature of the surface by 2 to 4 degrees and raises the sea level. That’s why we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, which requires new energy to replace fossil fuels. For example, there is solar energy and nuclear power. Advanced countries such as Germany have many options other than fossil fuels, but countries like China and India do not have the power to put their choices into action yet. Therefore, only if they can clearly prove that the essential fossil fuels for them can be replaced by nuclear power can they reduce their use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power can be demonstrated by 2025, so it can be shown as soon as possible compared to other alternative energy sources and will be suitable for countries like China and India.
    His argument is persuasive. This is because the causes of global warming are specified and the solutions for this are also clearly presented. However, it can present questions about safety. When building and using nuclear power plants, training is needed to ensure that they are fully aware of the risks.

    Like

  6. He emphasis “we need new nuclear power” .now china and indea burning coll and generating electrical energy. so burning coll produce atmospheric pollution. atmospheric pollution is make bad effect.for example health hazard or forest apoptosis. so nuclear power is not discharge polluted air. because power sorce is not using fossil fuel. but nuclear power has risc of nuclear pollution. it is very dangerous to human. and we can not see radioactive rays. so we have to think radioactive rays risk. it is necessary condition to introduction nuclear power.

    Like

  7. The impact of climate change and nuclear power.
    We have to look at Problems in developed and developing countries.
    As we as a society figure out how to manage the problems of the developed world , and we have to look at how we move forward and manage the impact of those decisions.
    About basically CO2 emissions around the world over the 30 years.There are three things that you need to look at and appreciate.CO2 emissions are expected to continue to grow for next 30 years. In order to control climate change,CO2 emissions have to literally go to zero because it’s the cumulative emissions that drive heating on the planet.
    Second things you should notice is that the bulk of the growth comes from the developing countries.Many developed countries substituting coal energy,but poor countries don’t have the choice such developed countries.
    One of helping energy problems of poor countries,there are called Chinda tests.
    Right now we are waiting for a miracle,the most important thing is the choice. If that choice is not secure such as nuclear power, We should not choose.

    Like

    1. The impact of climate change and nuclear power.
      We have to look at Problems in developed and developing countries.
      As we as a society figure out how to manage the problems of the developed world , and we have to look at how we move forward and manage the impact of those decisions.
      About basically CO2 emissions around the world over the 30 years.There are three things that you need to look at and appreciate.CO2 emissions are expected to continue to grow for next 30 years. In order to control climate change,CO2 emissions have to literally go to zero because it’s the cumulative emissions that drive heating on the planet.
      Second things you should notice is that the bulk of the growth comes from the developing countries.Many developed countries substituting coal energy,but poor countries don’t have the choice such developed countries.
      One of helping energy problems of poor countries,there are called Chinda tests.
      Right now we are waiting for a miracle,the most important thing is the choice.
      I think If that choice is not secure such as nuclear power, We should not choose. Nuclear power should not be used unless keeping safety.

      Like

  8. Joe Lassiter told us these developing countries making more and more carbon every year. When 2050 coming the whole world will have 850 billion tons carbon on the air. At that time we can’t control the temperature on the air. That’s why we need to reduce use fossil fuel and make the earth reduce burdens on the air. Now we know that Nuclear probably is the best way to solve climate change. We can see that graph he showed the developing countries use the carbon is increasing year after year.
    Some people say we don’t have the way to solve the Nuclear waste, so it’s not a good idea to replace the carbon. But in 2030, a new Nuclear power plant will be make , and it might be better than carbon power.Then we can solve the problem about nuclear waste. I think people need to know that carbon is the worst way to get power. If we can change the future that we already know, why not ?

    Like

  9. The main point is that we need nuclear power to solve climate change. There are 3 reasons why nuclear power is needed. First, technically,they could implement it in the developing countries such as China and India , and it would be accepted by the people in the countries. Second, it had to be a technology that was scalable,that it could deliver the same benefits on the same timetable as fossil fuels. Third, it had to be cost-effective. The people who are developing these say we can get them in position to demo by 2025 and to scale by 2030,if you will just let us.

    His argument is persuasive. I think climate change is serious problem. This problem is caused by humans. So, we have to solve by the science technology that we have created. But, nuclear power is concerned about safety. We must improve it.
    How do you deal with safety issues?

    Like

  10. If nuclear power don’t solve climate change, China and India release CO2 that is greenhouse gas. These countries use coal. China regards coal as main energy. So, global worming is getting worse as it is. And, people’s thinking about nuclear power is old. A company attempts to new nuclear technologies.
    I think his opinion is strong.my opinion is nuclear energy is necessary until we can cover anything energy other than thermal power. So.his opinion is similar to mine.but I have question that is how much safety can be secured based on scientific evidence.

    Like

  11. At the United States Energy Infomation Agency’s assessment, It has three problems we should notice. One is CO2 emissions are expected to continue to grow for the next 30 years. Due to that of the event, It promotes to drive heating on the planet. The second thing is that the bulk of the growth comes from developing countries, from China, from India, from the rest of the world. The last one is that each year, about 10 gigatons of carbon are getting added to the planet’s atmosphere, and diffusing into the ocean and into the land. It probably goes a long way towards locking in a 2-4 degree C increase in global surface temperatures and promote climate change. We should manage to reduce CO2 emissions. But developing countries like China, India, don’t reduce CO2 emissions to bring people to power. Its policy can’t be helped. Because the government like the counties decides to benefit their people. So as the useable alternative policy, he thinks it is new nuclear energy. It enables us to upsize its power plant by 2030 and introduce new technical knowledge.
    His argument is a little weak. Of cause, we should reduce fossil fuel power plants, because owing to its plant, CO2 concentration is getting added to the planet’s atmosphere. But, I don’t think that’s why we need nuclear power. Nuclear power is easy to make the substance to generate electricity, but it unenable us to lose the substance like a contaminant. You know the big accident in Fukushima in 2011 anyone didn’t prospect occurred. I think we won’t make the nuclear power plant in the future if we get the technical knowledge and discover it. I have a question. Do we have the else energy plan we can convince aspects of relief, cost, and the future?

    Like

  12. Since 2015, when Paris agreement was adopted, we have hoped to limit the CO2 emotions to keep the temperature from rising. However with projections of EIA, he claims it is almost impossible to meet the goal that we made in Paris. One reason that support this opinion is that the developing countries including China and India are burning fossil fuel and produce CO2 to be economically developed.

    His word “ rich countries can do what they choose, poor countries do what they must.” came straight to me.It was persuasive enough to say we need nuclear power.However he didn’t mention about Chernobyl nor Fukushima. Climate change is things that we humans made. But We also need to admit that the accident of nuclear power plant was created by humans. And they even killed thousands of people. After I watched his talk and again put on the scale, I still think the nuclear power is cruelty and fears than our place to live is gradually fading. I felt I need more knowledge about science anyways.

    Like

  13. 1
    He reasons that the whole world have to attention to how to the influence on the environment when they try to solve the issues. He states a thoughtful prediction. That is the emission of carbon dioxide are going to keep on increasing for 30 years in spite of the Paris treaty. In response, it is supposed to happen the rising sea level, acidifying the ocean and rising the temperature to 2 degrees from 5 degrees. Also, choice of energy are different for each country. These are matters are complexly intertwined. He argues the necessity of the replacements for a coalfired power which is chose by especially China and India and emit a lot of carbon dioxide He suggests a new generation of nuclear plants instead of it because nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 so much. Generally, it was said that the nuclear plants are dangerous, expensive and time-consuming. But some people and he are against this mindset. Finally, he said that what we need is the choice.
    2
    I feel there is weak persuasion with his argument. Because I am a Japanese. So, I understand that nuclear plants can get to turn into what people fear from an innovative and also what war with nuclear like. If the nuclear plants become common all over the world, it would be had an eye on by such as terrorists. It is true that the climate changes are very serious problem. But I just worry about that.

    I am so sorry for the late submission.

    Like

  14. He said there’re some reasons for need nuclear power.Firstly is globalwarming is caused by the total of the amount of co2 emission since we’ve used.From a survey we’ll release 850 billion ton of co2 into 30 years.And we’ve already released 550billion ton of co2.Because of these the templeture raised 2~4°c.So it’s necessary to use not releasing co2 enegy. Secondly,dependency on fossil fuels is not good to improve society.In China,there’re a lot of problem of air pollution because of using fossil enegy.These problem made by some condition of each country such as problem of technically and cost,rules.
    From his opnions,I think it’s strong idea that difference of facing each country.If a developing counrty introduce nuclear power plant,it needs high technology and cost, environmental condition. So his view is quite interesting and concretely.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.