McDaniel 1

Zoe McDaniel

Professor Douglas

ENG 112-01

7 February 2017

Is Nuclear Energy the Solution to Global Warming?

Earth has been supplied with numerous resources to obtain and harness energy from, but

the prevailing issue of global warming has incited an urgent need for scientists to make changes

with todays main energy source. Utilizing nuclear reactions as a substitute energy source for

fossil fuels has been an extensive and controversial topic dating back to the 1950s (Nuclear

Energy). In the 2013 article Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming, written by Colin

McInnes, a professor at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, McInnes argues for the

benefits of nuclear energy, claiming that the economic and environmental advantages outweigh

the drawbacks of this resource. In opposition to McInnes view, the 2013 article Nuclear Power

Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global Warming, published by the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) in New York City, claims that nuclear energy is completely unappealing

financially and due to its associated risks, other natural resources should instead be considered to

aid in the depletion of global warming. Both McInnes and the NRDC are pleading to the general

public to consider their points of view, but McInnes article poses a stronger rhetorical argument

than the NRDCs.

McInnes article Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming, argues that the

switch from fossil fuels to nuclear energy is practical and will eventually diminish the effects of

global warming and help cover the initial costs of starting nuclear plants. His focus was on the
 McDaniel 2

environmental and social aspects of utilizing nuclear energy. McInnes explained why nuclear

energy plants are more beneficial than coal-burning plants, wind farms, and solar energy panels

for the environment and in the long-run financially. Per McInnes,

For comparison, each year a city-powering 1000 MW coal plant will dump 7.5 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide as a gas directly into the atmosphere and produce approximately
400,000 tonnes of fly ash. An equivalent nuclear plant will produce 27 tonnes of spent
fuel in solid form which can be easily separated from the environment, equal in volume
to a box of less than 3 cubic meters (McInnes 4).

McInnes provided logical information confirming that nuclear power would be an efficient

resource to utilize in the diffusion of global warming. McInnes article contains detailed

scientific information, yet he wrote his article with diction that can be easily read and

understood. While McInnes shared genuinely beneficial information on nuclear energy, there

were only a few counterclaims presented by McInnes on why nuclear energy should not be used

to deplete global warming issues. Instead, he promoted nuclear energy and the idea that energy

production has been evolving for centuries. McInnes simply explained why nuclear energy

should be the next step in this evolution without providing the benefits of other sources. Overall,

McInnes arguments are solid, logical, and easily understandable; however, he could have added

stronger counterclaims to show that his ideologies are not flawless.

In the NRDCs article Nuclear Power Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global

Warming, the focus is on the financial issues and high risks associated with nuclear energy. The

NRDC claimed that the government should not provide subsidies for nuclear energy projects

until the nuclear industry demonstrates it can further reduce the continuing security and

environmental risks of nuclear power- including the misuse of nuclear materials for weapons and

radioactive contamination from nuclear waste- (1). This organization focused on the initial

start-up costs of nuclear energy plants, as well as the high, but extremely rare, risks associated
 McDaniel 3

with nuclear energy, rather than its direct ability to inhibit global warming issues. The NRDC

does an adequate job of acknowledging counterviews to their own; however, they do not dismiss

these claims with comparable or strong rebuttals. They prepared an economic evaluation on the

startup costs of nuclear energy plants, for example, but they did not provide the startup costs for

other sources of energy, such as fossil fuel plants, solar energy installations, or wind energy

farms to make a proper comparison to. The NRDC wrote their article with overwhelming run-on

sentences filled with intricate vocabulary, making it difficult to read and understand the first go-

around. They also added somewhat snarky remarks, assumptions, and biased statements about

the use of nuclear energy, creating a relationship between the reader and the writer that pressures

the reader into acquiring the writers views. The NRDCs argument clung to the horrifying

what-ifs of nuclear energy, such as potential terrorism and radioactivity, without mentioning

how rare the risks associated with nuclear energy are or the aftermath of events that have

occurred in past nuclear accidents.

These two articles examine nuclear energys potential uses from different points of view,

ranging from environmental views, to financial views, to social views. McInnes formed a logical,

cohesive argument more efficiently than did the NRDC. Though McInnes only briefly mentioned

counterclaims when absolutely necessary, he effectively used logos in his argument to strongly

convey the idea that nuclear energy could reshape society, the current environment, and prevent

global warming in the future. The NRDC utilized pathos to appeal to their audiences fears of

nuclear energy to persuade them to look at other alternative energy sources; however, their

argument focused more on the expensive startup costs and risks of nuclear energy rather than its

practicality or ability to decrease the effects of global warming. While the NRDC was effective

at reaching out and connecting with their audiences worries and fears, the message was difficult
 McDaniel 4

to ascertain. McInnes argument was stronger than that of the NRDCs because he successfully

conveyed his message to his audience with easily comprehensible language and logical

information to support his claims.

 McDaniel 5

Works Cited

McInnes, Colin. "Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming." Nuclear Power, edited by

Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.cpcc.edu/login?

url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010843220/ OVIC?

u=centralp&xid=50e221e2. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "Nuclear

EnergyThe Key to a Low-Carbon Future," http://biztech.caledonianmercury.com, 2

Feb. 2011.

Natural Resources Defense Council. "Nuclear Power Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global

Warming." Nuclear Power, edited by Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier, Greenhaven Press,

2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.cpcc.edu/login?

url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010843221/OVIC?

u=centralp&xid=25ab27ca. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "Nuclear

Facts,", Feb. 2007.

"Nuclear Energy." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context, ezproxy.cpcc.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999227/

OVIC?u=centralp&xid=0353601e. Accessed 1 Feb. 2017.