1

Argument Analysis Paper

Abdullah Baig

Forman Christian College

 2

Both op-eds are written on a serious issue, the need for clean energy and Nuclear power,

which can make or destroy the earth's future for the next generations. The first op-ed "Nuclear

Power Can Save The World" is written by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven

Pinker; Drs. Goldstein and Qvist are the authors of “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have

Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.” Dr. Pinker is a psychology professor at

Harvard. It was published in The New York Times on April 6, 2019. The second op-ed is written

by Behname Taebi; Behnam Taebi is an assistant professor of philosophy at the Delft University

of Technology who concentrates on issues of ethics and nuclear power. This op-ed was published

in The New York Times on August 30, 2010. The readership of The New York Times is 130

million monthly readers as of December, 2017 .

Both op-eds are compelling in their own way, the first one states that the fears the nation

has are misguided but the other states that nuclear power has many pros and cons and this

method of producing energy needs technological advancement and strict regulations. In today's

world, we use electricity for everything. Everything is automized these days and there is a tug of

war over energy among many nations. The carbon levels in our atmosphere are way beyond the

safe limit because of our reliance on fossil fuel for over a century but we can't give up the

technology that we are so proud of. The first op-ed states that, "We must provide for the fast-

growing energy needs of poorer countries and extend the grid to a billion people who now lack

electricity. And still, more electricity will be needed to remove excess carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere by midcentury." The problem isn't energy, the problem is clean energy, it's a matter

of the survival of life as we know it. The first op-ed states that renewable energy can't provide us

with enough energy because there is a gargantuan of variables involved like rain or shine and

batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks(which show no sign of materializing
 3

any time soon) plus renewable energy sources only work with fossil fuel backup. The first op-ed

is compelling its audience towards nuclear energy by stating these arguments. The second op-ed

states that the problem with nuclear energy is hazardous radioactive waste and its longevity.

Harnessing nuclear energy isn't easy and the disposal of waste is a problem too. We are leaving

harmful radiation for our future generations and it's an issue of "intergenerational justice". The

radioactive waste can remain active for "tens of thousands of years". Many nations have started

to consider nuclear power as a clean energy source as it emits very low greenhouse gases and can

enhance GDP while producing large amounts of energy but critics remain vehement.

The first op-ed then provides ample shreds of evidence to support its argument like

Germany which went all-in on renewable energy resources and it has seen a little reduction in

greenhouse emission. It also states that countries like New Zealand and Norway have

decarbonized their energy grids because of their good hydro sites but nearly all these sites are

already dammed. Then it states that France and Sweden are proven models of rapid

decarbonization as they heavily relied on nuclear energy and it worked out really well as nuclear

energy has intense power concentration and is compact. France did it in 15 years and Sweden in

20 years. The second op-ed focuses on the various production methods and the nature of waste

being produced as evidence. There are two types of production methods, open fuel cycle and

closed fuel cycle. The open fuel cycle produces a lot of radioactive material that isn't reusable

and it has the risk of being used in nuclear arsenals(even if the chances are low but they are still

there). The waste from open-cycle is radioactive for 200,000 years but the radioactive period of

closed-cycle is reduced to only 10,000 years. But if we approach this with intergenerational

justice then it's not fair. We should bear our own burden. We should prefer closed-cycle though

because it lowers the burden of future generations.

 4

The main argument of the first op-ed is that we need to turn to nuclear energy and fast.

We need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and nuclear energy is the only way to do

it. The main argument of the second op-ed is that there is a problem with nuclear energy which is

nuclear waste. It states that we have to take care of the waste produced by nuclear reactors to

avoid hazards.

Then both op-eds move on to the issue of cost. A nuclear reactor is very costly to make.

These costs can be cut by standardization and repetition but the nuclear reactor will still be

expensive. The costs are increased by public fears. They have to take extra security precautions

which can alter the previous model and the cost increases every time it's replanned. These costs

can be cut by technological advancements like there's a "fourth-generation reactor" underway

and by political wills like of China and South Korea but it has many more "political" problems.

The second op-ed states that reprocessing and recycling nuclear waste is very costly and complex

and it has its own risks of "proliferation of nuclear weapons". Then both op-eds agree on the fact

that we need technological advancement in this field, the first one states that we need to do it to

reduce costs and the other states that we need to do it to reduce the radioactive period of the

waste.

The first op-ed then disregards the concerns stated in the second op-ed by stating that the

nuclear waste of the last 60 years of America can be stored in a single Walmart(it's a chain of

malls in America) because it's compact and we can bury it deep down after processing it and

reducing its radioactive period to a few thousand years by the recent advancements of

technology. The first op-ed also states that nuclear power has way fewer hazards than other

power sources and it doesn't explode like a nuclear bomb; the casualties caused by nuclear power

are ignorable compared to the casualties caused by fossil fuel energy, hydro energy, and wind
 5

energy. Then it provides evidence of Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Both op-ed also state the idea of "public fear". The public is terrified because of the few

accidents that happened in the last century and the horrors of a radiation outburst caused by

nuclear power. When people think of nuclear energy, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

comes into their minds. All these fears are unfounded and they can be overcome by enlightening

people, according to the first op-ed.

The first op-ed supports nuclear energy and the second op-ed supports it reluctantly. The

second op-ed has some concerns and they are valid but the first op-ed tries to push them away

eloquently. The second op-ed was written 9 years ago so the author didn't know about the recent

advancements made in the field. I personally am in favor of nuclear power and it is the only way

to save our planet and I agree with the first op-ed. The first op-ed provides ample scientific

evidence to sway its audience's minds and it does so beautifully and humorously.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-
nuclear-power.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30iht-edtaebi.html