Future energy Have you ever thought about the energy providing you electricity for your daily life that nuclear power could take you off from this world (it is not clear what you mean here)? What was your feeling when you watching news about the Fukushima nuclear crisis? What do you think when you see how victims of Chernobyl disaster live today? Good start – the questions are a very good way to get your reader’s attention. ) All of those issues are just because of one reason – the safety problem of nuclear power.
The question is: Can we control it completely? This question is not only for some people or some groups; the /a specific government (or governments? as with your other essays on this topic, be clear about what you mean. Are you thinking about one specific government? Governments in general? ) should consider their citizens and, even every single species living on this planet. Apparently, some countriesy could not dominate nuclear power so that tragedy was happened and severely affected on millions of people.
For this reason, I think government (again, be clear – one specific government? Governments in general? should replace nuclear power by alternatives such as solar electrical energy ? Is this supposed to be here? generation and wind electric power generation. Sustainabilityle is the most important index for every type of energy resource. People argues that nuclear is the most sustainable energy resource they have. The fuel of nuclear power cost that uranium and plutonium is the precious metals in the nature (? It is not clear what you mean here).
But people who support nuclear power seems to have ignored the fact that the storage of precious metals is very low; it has some day that exhaust from the Earth (awkward – perhaps “will some day be exhausted from the earth”? ). People know that wind energy and solar energy all have been exploited (this is really the heart of your argument in this paragraph, but this part of the sentence is not clear. What do you mean they have been exploited? This sounds like a negative thing, not a positive thing as you argument should suggest. ). The fuel cost of those two energy resources is zero.
They are enduring energy resources, unless the sun disappears from sky and the Earth stops revolving. Spinning. So for the issue of resources (you started the paragraph with the idea of sustainability. It would be a good idea to end your argument in this paragraph with that as well. ), solar energy (what about wind energy? ) is better than nuclear power. Other than sustainabilityle, the cost of running and maintaining a nuclear power plant is the important point that people find? interesting. For every power plant, people will spend money on planning, designing, constructing, running, maintaining it.
Every single step in this process will cost amount of money to make sure the plant will works well. And the cost of materials and cost of maintenance is the significant chunk of the whole cost (what is the cost comparison? Do you have some statistics/figures that support your argument here? ). People (who are these ‘people’ you keep writing about? Do you have some support from experts on this topic that you could bring into your argument? ) are saying that traditional electric plants will cost too much money on materials and maintenance. So they think nuclear power plant is the best choice for finance.
For nuclear power plant, it will cost only less than a hundred tons of nuclear material for every year; nevertheless, the cost of designing and planning a nuclear power plant is much higher than traditional electric plant. It cost huge number of money on safety, but it still does not work well. However, for solar electrical energy generation and wind electric power generation, it cosst much less on designing and constructing than nuclear power plants, even none on fuels. I suggest government to calculate the price-performance ratio of setting a plant. O. k.
Good suggestion, but what is the cost comparison? How do you know that these differences in cost exist? For every factory or plant, people always focus on how its productivity is. But the hot potato of pollution is getting more necessary (? I am not sure what you mean here). They might think more about how much discharges will it waste and how to dispose of those discharge more thoroughly. It has been argued that the most important advantage of nuclear power plant is its low discharging. And people who holding this opinion think nuclear power plants are very eco-friendly for environment.
They contend that there is no gaseous pollutants discharge from nuclear power plants. But we can not ignore that the nuclear radiation from nuclear power plant waste is much more dangerous than gaseous pollutants that very harmful for the human and the nature. For the human body, when the radiation value get overtakes more thanthe threshold, it will damage the tissue in the body. People still haves no effective method to dispose of the Radioactive Nuclear Waste that all this three method can not restrain the radiation come out (? this is unclear).
It will damage the soil and the ocean andthat threatens the other species. Even today, the nuclear radiation from Chernobyl disaster continues to influence on the soil and water. Ukraine has millions of victims affected by this accident. And now, some of them died by cancer, some of them are still living under the shadow of the Chernobyl disaster. Nevertheless, there is no problem on discharge of solar electrical energy generation and wind electric power generation. (you need to say more about this – give more of a comparison in order to make your argument stronger.
So I am highly recommending that government should consider the future of human race. In conclusion, people who support nuclear power strongly are holding strong reasons (“have good reasons”? So that you don;t repeat ‘strong’). But it is not suitable for nowadays anymore. People should learn to embrace new technology to replace the old one. The Government should use new energies to make sure people’s life can be proceeding and secure, and human race can be inherit prosperous. As Meador (1978) says: “There is no way to know absolutely about the future until we make the journey”. , said by Meador (1978).
This is a great way to end, Mike. Mike – You make a number of good points in this essay and you have organized it well. You have all of the elements of a good essay: a clear thesis statement, focused paragraphs with topic sentences and generally good connections between ideas. I have made a number of comments throughout your essay, though, of places where improvements are needed. My main comment is that you need to give more specific examples of the statements that you make. This means: – – Eliminating your use of “They” and “People” to describe those who hold opposite views to yours.
These are large generalizations that make it easy for your reader to question the reality of what you are saying. If there are experts who hold these opinions, then be specific about who they are. – Use sources and statistics to back up your arguments – I have noted a number of places where you make some statements that are generalizations. These generalizations make your argument weaker than it could be. However, if you use statistics or confirmed facts to back up your generalizations, that would strengthen your argument.
Source: You have a source listed at the end of your essay that seems like it might be a good one to support some of your arguments. Why didn’t you use more information from this source throughout your essay? Mark: 60/100 Reference: Meador, Roy. (1978). Future Energy Alternatives. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. 3, 112. This book talks about energy crisis and why we need energy alternatives. The book shows several types of alternatives such as solar energy, wind energy, bioenergy, peat, heat pumps, and hydrogen energy. Then it gives what are the benefits of those alternatives.