Nuclear Energy

Introduction Uranium, because it can be easily processed into fissile material, has been the main choice of nuclear fuel since the 1940’s. Even though effective, Uranium has some major drawbacks. The first major drawback is that uranium is not naturally abundant. The World Nuclear Association (WNA), as seen in figure 1, predicts a dramatic increase of nuclear power plants throughout the world due to increasing energy demands. This will not only hasten the depletion of uranium stockpiles but also cause the price of uranium to rise possibly making the power it can generate not economically feasible.

There is a serious lobby in the world that pushes for the new energy creation. Other scholars assert that allowing countries in the Middle East to produce nuclear energy is very dangerous to the environment. The consumption of global energy is expected to increase tremendously by the year 2020. The developing countries, which include countries in the Middle East will account for this sort of demand. As the cost of energy increase countries in the world are looking for various ways to increase energy sources and reduce costs.

Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position. 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.

Does the cost of either ticket account for this difference? Both the production and consumption of energy give rise to economic costs that are difficult to allocate. These externalities are a long-recognized economic problem. That is why we are in the midst of boom times for the alternative energy industry. For the most part, alternative means alternative to derivatives of crude oil, but it also seeks to substitute for coal and to a lesser extent nuclear energy.

INTRODUCTION The effects on the United States would be enormous if nuclear energy was to completely replace fossil fuels in the production of electricity. With fossil fuel resources disappearing quicker than can be produced, our nation is entering a serious energy crisis. However the future may not be too bleak since many studies have come out on the advantages of nuclear energy. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has undertaken an immense amount of research and produced many studies on the benefits of nuclear energy and its ability to produce the electricity necessary for the United States. Studies on the safety of transportation, benefits of radiation, reliability and economic uses of nuclear energy, and benefits for the environment have proved repeatedly the need for the replacement of fossil fuels.

Although fossil fuel supplies are not infinite, there is currently no shortage but as fossil fuels continue to deplete, the cost of these fuels will increase dramatically. Despite the fact that these fuels are nonrenewable, these resources will remain the leading source of energy but as these fuels become less available, the world will become increasingly dependent on energy conservation and alternative sources of energy (Olah, 2005). Coal and natural gas are very different fossil fuels especially when it comes to environmental issues, content and life cycle, and cost and demand. The main problem wi... ... middle of paper ... ..., John (2007): Performance and Costs of Power Plants with Capture and Storage of CO2. Energy 32(7), 1163-1176 Goodell, John (2006): Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future.

Times are hard enough, and paying for more energy that we don’t need right now isn’t worth it. Plus the money to build ... ... middle of paper ... ...id metal fast breeder reactor." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale, 2011. Gale Science In Context.

As our power consumption increases, the US leans more heavily on our perennial favourite, the fossil fuel. Nuclear has lost the public relations game, and has the disadvantage of requiring a longer-term strategy to prove more economic than steam coal and natural gas. If existing trends continue, nuclear power will quietly fade into the sunset; another relic of the Cold War. A successful nuclear policy, however, could significantly reduce global warming and air pollution while feeding the increased power demand. Nuclear is the prudent and progressive decision…but its future is by no means decided.

Energy Crisis Interrelated to Global Warming. Photovoltaic Cell – A Possible Solution Abstract- The world’s energy crisis has worsened in recent years, as oil prices dramatically increased due to the limited amount of available oil. Global warming is considered as a byproduct of energy crisis, because as oil continues to burn in the refining process, CO2 is constantly emitted to the atmosphere at a fast rate and in heavy concentrations, which in turn, worsens the global warming situation. Photovoltaic cell technology converts sunlight into direct current electricity. This source can be a possible solution to solve the energy crisis as well as the global warming issue.

6, pp. 42-48. McFarlane, Allison, "It's 2050: Do you know where your nuclear waste is? ", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 2011 Wald, Matthew L., "What Now for Nuclear Waste?" Scientific America.