And the way they are now, each of these sources are 15 times less effective than nuclear power. Therefore, Tucker claims nuclear power as the only way to meet the demands of our society today. And these points being acknowledged, countries have already begun constructing new reactors with much better technology than the decades-old Fukushima. .
Tucker's article, although brief, is very precise, and his claims are hard to argue with. However, in the course of the article, Tucker fails to tell, in detail, the environmental effects of nuclear power. We are lead to believe, in comparison to use of fossil fuels, that nuclear power is not too detrimental to the environment; since it is carbon-free. On the other hand, in the article, "If The Japanese Can't Build A Safe Nuclear Reactor Who Can?" by Anne Applebaum, we are told that the costs and effects of nuclear power plants are many: waste, cleanup, and health-care costs in the case of a disaster. In this, Tucker draws the audience in and assures them the immense safety of nuclear power, except when it is not safe.
Despite that, in the overall sense, Tucker is correct. According to reports by CNN, right after the incident in Fukushima, Germany shut down all of its older generation plants, Japan pulled back on its plants, and Switzerland decided on not creating any new reactors. However, not every country decided to do so. Both France and the U.S. decided to continue with nuclear power, reaffirming Tucker's points that nuclear power is the way to go. Most people after hearing about Fukushima don't quite trust the idea of nuclear power plants. Citizens fear largely improbable scenarios which have a very unlikely chance of happening and that the plants are unsafe and harmful to the environment. What they don't realize is that those scenarios are left to chance, whereas climate change is very real. If we don't create a solution to the global warming situation, we will find ourselves in dire circumstances.
