An Analysis of Literature Concerning the Future of Power Generation: Nuclear Energy or Renewable Energy?

The United States needs a change in its energy sources. Oil, first of all, is a scarce resource that will eventually run out, and it also makes the U.S. depend on the political situation in other countries, as can be seen at the frequent changes in oil prices due to the political situation in the Middle-East. Alternative energy sources are an important issue to consider and nuclear energy is certainly the most controversial. There are currently 104 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, but the licenses of those plants will expire in foreseeable future, the first one already in 2013 and the last one in 2046 (Nuclear Energy Inst.). Those expiration dates initiate the discussions if the licenses should be renewed for the plants

An example of the environmental success nuclear energy has provided is France in the 1970s and 1980s. The country switched from using fossil fuels and instead used nuclear energy to supply 78% of its electricity (see figure 3). This in turn lowered the country’s greenhouse emissions by approximately 2% each year since. No accidents have ever occurred at any of France's power plants (Biello, 2013).

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

As the worlds population continues to grow, the energy demand will also increase posing an important question as to how will we keep up with the demand, and which source of energy will be the most efficient and be a better source for human sustainability. Fuel for nuclear energy is abundant and is derived from the fission of uranium and plutonium. It meets the definition of sustainable by being able to provide energy for long time periods without depriving future generations; it releases very little greenhouse gases, is less expensive, and is a reliable form of

For years, many scientists, environmentalists, and energy experts have been studying how human’s creation and use of energy has impacted our environment. These experts have discovered some troubling facts. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

According to “Nuclear Power Is the Energy of the Future”, Patrice Hill states that nuclear power should be the main energy in future. Hill claims that the nuclear is stable and abundant. Hill also argues that using nuclear is much cheaper than using other types of energy. He contends that because the nuclear power is

According to the World Energy Outlook report in 2006, nuclear energy is listed as the least efficient measure in reducing GHG emission, whereas improved energy efficiency had contributed 65% of the total reduction. Therefore I believe that while we are waitting to switch to a “real” sustainable energy source, we should focus on improving energy efficiency and conservation instead of risking the distinction of mankind by continue developing nuclear industries. Unlike, nuclear power, improving energy efficiency not only reduce the GHG emission on electricity generation, it can also be applied to a much broader context, such as transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing which in total contribute to over 50% of world's total GHG emissions (browse energy and climate data). Nevertheless, continue to expand renewable energy is also a good option for replacing our dependence on nuclear energy. Numerous scientific studies have already shown how wind and solar energy are already cheaper to operate than nuclear energy, while being able to generate more energy than nuclear given equal resources ( ). In Europe, even though Germany has less wind resource than Britain, it was reported that currently the electricity generated by wind in Germany has already surpassed the nuclear generated energy in Britain (Barnaby and Kemp, “Future,” p.

In today’s society, we have an almost immediate demand for an alternative source of energy. This is due to the gradual depletion of our finite sources of fossil fuels as well as due to the damage of the burning of fossil fuels to our environment. All of these alternative sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear power come with their upsides and downsides. The most controversial of which, nuclear power, also manages to have the most potential in the near future due to its lack of a carbon emission output.

Fossil fuels are criticized for contributing to the “global warming” theory, and the “greenhouse effect” blamed on unregulated industry, and transference pollution in our atmosphere. While energy preservation and education are important, it doesn’t solve the long-term problem: energy is needed and is increasing in demand as technology and our way of life advances. It is not possible to install a solar panel on every house, or a windmill on every hill. Fueling the future is a growing challenge for the world. At the current rate of consumption, fossil fuels will soon run out. Nuclear energy is clearly one of the best answers to our energy problems. Nuclear power system produce a tremendous amount of energy for their mass and are very safe when

Brown also foresees a political problem – which nuclear power may be selectively pursued by the developed countries only. However, I am of the opinion that nuclear power remains credible and is the solution to lowering carbon emissions. The next section of this paper will expand on the arguments for nuclear power, against the backdrop of renewable energy challenges and nuclear

Nuclear power has been around since the 1950s, and has had varying opinions throughout the years (iaea.org). At its conception, individuals viewed nuclear power as an unlimited source of energy. People thought it would revolutionize the world and produce large amounts of power at extremely low prices. However, opinions changed after catastrophic events like the reactor meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Over the years, nuclear reactors have improved and made safer, and the power of the atom is slowly being tamed. There is still conflict between those who view nuclear power as the future and those who view it as a curse. Nuclear power is the future.

As each year passes, more and more electricity will be made as a result of increased nuclear power plants around the world. The economic benefits of nuclear energy are equally advantageous as the environmental aspects.

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.