Nuclear power greener/A Critique of The role of nuclear energy in 21st century for sustainable development in Korea

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(Review Paper) Cited in Nuclear power greener/A Critique of The role of nuclear energy in 21st century for sustainable development in Korea

Points Made[edit | edit source]

Nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy that can keep up with the increasing` economic development and population growth while being sustainable, environmental friendly and without producing GHG emissions[1]..

It takes 10,000 years for radioactive waste to dissolve... How is this sustainable? Lbora286 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Methods[edit | edit source]

In comparison to other developed countries Korea has a very high demand for energy because of the rapid industrialization occurring. Currently, Korea has to depend on other countries by purchasing their fossil fuel energy from them and having the energy transported in. The fossil fuel energy produces large amounts of CO2 which is contributing to GHG emissions[1].

Results[edit | edit source]

In an attempt to lower its reliance on carbon-based energy resources and therefore its reliance on other countries, Korea plans on using nuclear-based power to produce 50% of its electricity by 2015. By cutting down on its reliance on carbon-based energy production, Korea is not only becoming more independent, but they are also cutting down on the harmful environmental impacts of fossil fuels, such as Greenhouse Gases. This will also have major economical benefits for Korea[1].

Sure nuclear power has less environmental and economical benefits, but what about the health of the people that live around the power plants? The state of the economy will mean nothing when all the people are suffering from cancer and other health problems. :Bmina836 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The death rate from nuclear power versus coal shows us that more people die from coal related power than nuclear. Based on many studies scientists have come to the rational for every person that dies from nuclear power 4,000 die from coal[2]. The death toll on coal is enhanced with the consideration of climate change and destruction of the Ozone which in turn increase the number of disease and cancers to our society.Sambo1428 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that proliferating nuclear reactors is a necessary step in the reduction of greenhouse emissions as well as a viable step to meet the growing energy needs of the worlds populations. We cannot rely on foreign countries for a majority of our manufacturing needs while expecting them to use out dated technologies which creates more pollution than is necessary. Pollution is not stationary and when piped up into the jet stream, pollution from other nations may have a greater effect on North America than the nations that produced it.Cgree973 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Byong Whi Lee, BW (04/2002). "The role of nuclear energy in 21st century for sustainable development in Korea". Progress in nuclear energy (New series) (0149-1970), 40 (3-4), 327. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-1970(02)00025-2
  2. Johnston, J. (2011). Death Rate From Nuclear Power Vs Coal? This May Surprise You.