integrated

The reading claims that nuclear energy must be seen as the solution to replace it with fossil fuels and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand, the professor states that this idea is not premature and he refutes each of the author's reasons.

To begin with, the article avers that the fuel powers nuclear power plants is cheap compared to the fossil fuels. While, the lecture opposes this point by stating that it is not cheap. He says that the building of power plants takes time and experts compared to fossil fuels. In fact, he confirms that a lot of money spend to build these powers and the legislation of the government required these companies to add an emergence plan to protect residents so this has a significant cost compared to fossil fuels.

Second, the article posits that the process of creating nuclear energy is relatively safe. Conversely, the lecturer counters this point by explaining that accidents still happen. Actually, he mentions that even though the equipment prevent any catastrophe, it still have a devastating to the society. He gives an example to illustrate this. He says that in pyneslvenia powers plant released a small amount of radiation and it didn't threaten the people, but it costed one billlion dollars. In addition, he states the the psychological of the public was sever.

Third, the passage asserts that the radioactive waste can be managed. In contrast, the professor casts doubt on this point by telling us that the waste is not easy to manage. He says that during processing, high amount of radioactive substances are produced and during reprocessing, potanium is released, which is used to made nuclear weapon, and it is a difficult task if it exposed to theft. He says that after reprocessing a high quantity of waste still remain and it has to bury under ground which is a very hard task. Besides that, if apropriate place is found, the citizens stopped this action through legal action.