America relies heavily on foreign sources for the energy to run the country. The issue has received much media attention due to the political and economic implications it will have in the near future. This problem could at least be partially solved by using technology that already exists, rather than relying heavily on ones that have yet to come to fruition. America’s energy woes – specifically its reliance on fossil fuels – can be solved by reviving nuclear energy with the use of politics to tackle perceived dangers, technological advancements to make them more feasible, and public outreach to promote acceptance. Nuclear power has been around for decades and can be easily utilized to help meet America’s energy needs. With energy security and climate change being two of the many issues at the forefront of America’s problems, there is a growing need to find solutions. While alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal have great potential, they are technologies that still need to be refined and perfected. In contrast to that, nuclear energy has been around for decades and is utilized to a limited extent already. Instead of relying on the future for our growing power needs, using the past may be at least part of the solution. By investing in nuclear energy, a good portion of our energy needs can be easily met. This is already the case in parts of Europe where nuclear power contributes to large portions of their energy needs. According to Balat, France acquires about three-quarters of their electricity through nuclear power (2007). Although nuclear energy alone cannot be the entire solution, it can provide a large portion of the solution. It is widely known that America is going to need to find alternatives for... ... middle of paper ... ... the power plant. In turn that means the operators need to invest in proper security and management to keep the waste from being a growing problem. Furthermore, for nuclear energy to gain traction a public support base is needed. Without the public approving of what is going on, nothing can happen. There needs to be a general consensus on what needs to be done and what is acceptable. Operators of plants as well as governments need to prove that they are capable of managing the power plants. Aside from hydropower, nuclear power is the only proven energy source that does not contribute greenhouse gases to climate change. Nuclear power is only one part of a larger solution that is needed to reduce America’s contribution to climate change. Nuclear energy is beneficial in the long run and can prove to be a good starting point in the development of cleaner energy sources.
Non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels have been used up by society on a daily basis and have forced the world to find a new, clean energy source. The rising price of oil and the constant emission of carbon dioxide are proof that in the future our lives will be much harder to live. One answer to this problem is nuclear power, which has shown its efficiency during the times of World War II but has not been used commercially due to the challenges of dealing with nuclear waste and proliferation. In today?s modern era, nuclear power has been used in liquid metal fast breeder reactors, reactors that use uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239.
Smil, V. (2010).Myths in the Headlines: Nuclear Power, Energy: Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate (pp. 150-157). Washington, D.C.: Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute.
Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.
After the United States developed the atomic at the end of World War II, interest in nuclear technology increased exponentially. People soon realized that nuclear technology could be used for electricity, as another alternative to fossil fuels. Today, nuclear power has its place in the world, but there is still a lot of controversy over the use of nuclear energy. Things such as the containment of radiation and few nuclear power plant accidents have given nuclear power a bad image. However, nuclear power is a reliable source of energy because it has no carbon emissions, energy is available at any time, little fuel is needed for a lot of energy, and as time goes on, it is becoming safer and safer.
The production of nuclear energy is not as safe and clean as some say that it is. The Oxford Research Group released a report providing evidence that supports this point. It is clear that nuclear power plants do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide when they operate, but it is the mining of uranium and the storing of waste that produces the carbon dioxide pollution. This way of producing power is not as friendly to the environment as once thought. The report states that over time more carbon dioxide will be produced because more equipment and energy will be needed to extract uranium ore and store the waste. It is estimated by 2070 uranium nuclear power would produce as much carbon dioxide as a gas fired power station. If the use of nuclear power continues to increase this number would increase as well having a significant impact on global warming and the environment (Herbst).
Lynas, Mark, and Peter A. Bradford. "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?" The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
“By 2050, one-third of the world’s energy will need to come from solar, wind, and other renewable resources” (www.altenergy.org). America can no longer rely so heavily on nuclear energy. America needs to harness the energy found within natural, renewable resources. In fact, nuclear energy needs to be phased out completely because of its negative impact on health, the environment, and its overall cost.
“Where does our power come from?”, when asked, many people would not know the answer to this question. Some might say wind, water, or solar, but the main provider of America’s power are coal plants and nuclear reactors running to keep the lights on. Unfortunately, there is no free energy, it comes with a cost to the environment and its inhabitants. So when the choice arises to change the way humanity looks at our consumption of power, why chose the way we do things. Because the time has come for us as a country and the world to make the switch from the old to the new. We need to switch to nuclear power instead of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nuclear energy is a clean way to create electricity vesus other ways that produce the same amount
Nuclear power has proven before that it can result in tragedy, both seen in the accident in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, in places such as France and even the University of Maryland, we can see the many advantages that nuclear energy can bring forth, and for different purposes. In both research and energy production, nuclear energy has proven that it can not only improve our health and the economy, but also emit less harmful gases on the environment than fossil fuels. Looking to the future, nuclear energy can easily ascend as a dominant source of electricity – if properly managed. Other sources of energy will slowly deplete and continue to damage the environment and atmosphere. Nuclear power provides a solution to so many of the current energy crisis problems, so it is only a matter of
“Face it. Nukes are the most climate-friendly industrial-scale form of energy” (Power, Reiss, Pearlstein, 655). This statement is what I’m trying to promote through my argument. It also ties Inconvenient Truths: 10 Green Heresies by Matt Powers, Spencer Reiss, and Jonanna Pearlstein and Nuclear Power is Best Energy Source: Potchef Stroom together by bring out the main point all authors are trying to get across. Global warming has been a big concern for years now and one of the biggest causes for it, is the burning of fossil fuels to get energy. People that live in the United States of America use a huge amount of energy in their daily lives and that amount continues to grow with our population growing with it. My purpose of this piece is to persuade people to switch to nuclear power for a cleaner energy source because it’s the cleanest energy source.
“Every dollar spent on nuclear energy is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand” (Jacobson). Most countries today are becoming more and more dependent on nuclear power as a source of energy because of its high energy output and the availability of uranium used for fuelling nuclear reactors that generate power to provide electricity in households. Although using nuclear power as a source of energy has benefits like this, the danger posed by using nuclear power is too ominous.
Nuclear energy is the energy from the fission or fusing of nuclear atoms, the most common being uranium atoms. This energy source is the largest provider of carbon-free emissions for creating electricity. Being such a reliable energy source, it's no surprise that there are already states and countries relying on nuclear energy to provide a large percentage of their energy needs. Nuclear plants also only need to stop producing energy every 18-24 months, and that's just to refuel. Many brilliant minds approve of nuclear energy and there are studies ongoing to make this energy source even more eco-friendly, reliable, and accessible. Nuclear energy plants currently provide 20% of America's energy needs currently, and that amount should definitely be increased in the next decade.
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
Though it might seem that the world’s energy supply is secure as of the present, this issue is something that is beginning to worry even the richest states. “Countries as far apart as South Africa and Tajikistan are plagued by power cuts and there have been riots in several nations because of disruptions to electricity” and “rich states [are] no longer strangers to periodic blackouts” (ElBaradei). If we look again at the breakdown of U.S. electricity generation by energy source, it is evident that nuclear power is the next most substantial chunk of energy generation, with other renewables weighing in far behind that. I believe this begs the question, why do we not expand nuclear power to encompa...