GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Please rate my issue essay
[#permalink]
21 Jul 2016, 05:50
21 Jul 2016, 05:50
1
“The drawbacks to the use of nuclear power mean that it is not a long-term solution to the problem of meeting ever-increasing energy needs.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement.
The world has always been reliant on energy in one way or the other. The introduction of nuclear power to generate energy proved to be a boon for the modern world, especially the more advanced nations. However, due to the confinement of nuclear source to the developed countries and given the availability of other safer and renewable resources, I think that nuclear power would not be a viable source to fulfill the ever increasing energy needs.
First and foremost, nuclear power is in no doubt one of the best, if not the best, ways of generating energy. The rate with which it can produce energy cannot be matched by any other sources as very high amount of energy can be generated from a single plant. Furthermore, when it comes to cost, the initial cost of nuclear power plants is comparatively less than the other alternatives, for example the solar power, although the latter may prove to be more economic in the long run. Even though there are some bright sides of this, still its darker sides overwhelm the bright sides.
Nuclear energy, as we know, uses Uranium as its principle source, which is present in a limited supply. The recent research has shown that the supply of Uranium is expected to last for the next five to six decades only. Unlike water or wind, it does not get replenished through natural or other known processes. On the other hand, resources like wind, water or even solar will be there for eternity, which if utilized efficiently will surely help to sustain the increasing energy needs in the future.
Taking safety into consideration, no one can deny the fact that nuclear power is an extremely hazardous source. It is evident from various accidents and leaks of nuclear power plants across the world, be it the Chernobyl disaster in the 80’s or the infamous Fukushima disaster in the late 70’s. The radiations resulting from this is extremely harmful, not only to the human beings but to the whole environment, which can eventually disturb the whole ecosystem.
All in all, the drawbacks of use of nuclear power easily outweigh the benefits it can provide. Considering the safety and renewable aspect of other alternatives, nuclear power cannot be considered as the most suitable source to meet the ever increasing energy needs for long term.
The world has always been reliant on energy in one way or the other. The introduction of nuclear power to generate energy proved to be a boon for the modern world, especially the more advanced nations. However, due to the confinement of nuclear source to the developed countries and given the availability of other safer and renewable resources, I think that nuclear power would not be a viable source to fulfill the ever increasing energy needs.
First and foremost, nuclear power is in no doubt one of the best, if not the best, ways of generating energy. The rate with which it can produce energy cannot be matched by any other sources as very high amount of energy can be generated from a single plant. Furthermore, when it comes to cost, the initial cost of nuclear power plants is comparatively less than the other alternatives, for example the solar power, although the latter may prove to be more economic in the long run. Even though there are some bright sides of this, still its darker sides overwhelm the bright sides.
Nuclear energy, as we know, uses Uranium as its principle source, which is present in a limited supply. The recent research has shown that the supply of Uranium is expected to last for the next five to six decades only. Unlike water or wind, it does not get replenished through natural or other known processes. On the other hand, resources like wind, water or even solar will be there for eternity, which if utilized efficiently will surely help to sustain the increasing energy needs in the future.
Taking safety into consideration, no one can deny the fact that nuclear power is an extremely hazardous source. It is evident from various accidents and leaks of nuclear power plants across the world, be it the Chernobyl disaster in the 80’s or the infamous Fukushima disaster in the late 70’s. The radiations resulting from this is extremely harmful, not only to the human beings but to the whole environment, which can eventually disturb the whole ecosystem.
All in all, the drawbacks of use of nuclear power easily outweigh the benefits it can provide. Considering the safety and renewable aspect of other alternatives, nuclear power cannot be considered as the most suitable source to meet the ever increasing energy needs for long term.
Re: Please rate my issue essay
[#permalink]
21 Jul 2016, 06:27
21 Jul 2016, 06:27
Expert Reply
Well, The essay is good but the real problem is that it starts really good and then get in an unclear maze, ending up ,I would not say completely though, out of focus.
The statement clearly says this: "The drawbacks to the use of nuclear power mean that it is not a long-term solution to the problem of meeting ever-increasing energy needs"
That say, you should stay on one side i.e. positive or disagree OR on the other side i.e. negative or agree with such statement.
The problem is that here you do not completely centre the argument, talking for instance of the accident in japan. This is out of scope. You should say whether you agree nuclear energy can provide enough energy on the long run or NOT.
For instance, I agree that nuclear power will provide enough energy to our economic system, mainly for two reasons
From this the eastern world will have two positive effects: out of wars with the middle east because we were not more dependent from petroleum and almost zero terrorist attacks in Europe or US.
Considering that this statstics are true, but even if they are not, it is not your concern. ETS is concerned how you write and in which way. The rest is negligible.
Hope this helps
The statement clearly says this: "The drawbacks to the use of nuclear power mean that it is not a long-term solution to the problem of meeting ever-increasing energy needs"
That say, you should stay on one side i.e. positive or disagree OR on the other side i.e. negative or agree with such statement.
The problem is that here you do not completely centre the argument, talking for instance of the accident in japan. This is out of scope. You should say whether you agree nuclear energy can provide enough energy on the long run or NOT.
For instance, I agree that nuclear power will provide enough energy to our economic system, mainly for two reasons
- according to the scientists if we start right now to dig into the soil and extract ALL the uranium we have a supply for the next 25 years, which means, considering that we need a really small amount of it to run a power plant, we will end up to have an energy supply for the next 200 or 300 hundred of years.
- considering that our Uranium stock for over the 90 % are stored in safe countries, not unstable such as the middle east, but in Canada and Australia
From this the eastern world will have two positive effects: out of wars with the middle east because we were not more dependent from petroleum and almost zero terrorist attacks in Europe or US.
Considering that this statstics are true, but even if they are not, it is not your concern. ETS is concerned how you write and in which way. The rest is negligible.
Hope this helps
