Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Of The United Kingdom Essay

In November 2008, the United Kingdom parliament adopted a new Climate Change Act, obligating the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by mid-century (Fankhauser, 2009). Among all sectors, the power sector account for nearly 25% of UK’s Greenhouse gas emissions (Committee on climate change, 2016), which is a crucial decarburization area. Nuclear energy, believed by the UK Government, has an important role to play in delivering a long-term affordable low carbon energy future (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2013). There are 15 reactors operating currently, generating about 21% of the nation’s electricity, but almost half of this capacity is to be retired by 2025 (World Nuclear Association, 2016). In October 2010, the British Government gave permission for private suppliers to construct up to eight new nuclear power plants, among which the Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power station is the only one having a full construction and operation plan.

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.

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.

　　　　In the recent years, nuclear energy has gotten a comprehensive development. There are over 430 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 370,000 MWe of total capacity. About 70 more reactors are under construction, and these numbers are still rising up (World Nuclear

Generating power with gas (as an alternative to coal) and increasing the use of renewable energy sources also seem like very suitable options [9]. Additionally, power generation with the use of wind and tidal energy proves a very convenient alternative to nuclear power generation in London and the UK in general. These sources can deliver twice the amount of electricity as new-age nuclear reactors and would require less time to be implemented, thus the convenience [12].

America’s nuclear energy plants are — by a wide margin — the nation’s largest source of carbon-free power. They produce clean, reliable electricity as well as well-paying jobs. Although several dependable nuclear plants have closed in recent years for economic reasons, nuclear energy is getting a fresh look for its ability to produce vast amounts of power without emitting greenhouse gases. And with new reactor designs, both big and small, scientists and technologists are re-engineering the future of nuclear energy for everyone’s benefit.

Throughout history, the source of energy that powers the world has advanced alongside technology. The power on which civilization thrives has to be in accordance to the demand at which it is required. As technology evolves, objects from which energy can be extracted can expanded exponentially. In the status quo, the United States is trying to limit the greenhouse gas emissions instead of just switching power sources which is the wrong direction they should be going in. [Thesis] Instead of wasting their time and money investing in burning coal as their main source of power, countries and their governments need to assist in the transition to a more cost effective and efficient form of energy in the form of nuclear energy.

Expanding the Darlington Nuclear Facility will economically generate larger quantities of emission-free electricity, while conserving land area. First of all, the Darlington Nuclear Facility currently generates roughly 20 per cent of Ontario’s electricity with low operational costs, which can comfortably satisfy a city of 2 million people (Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2013). Expanding the facility will generate even larger quantities of electricity. The Darlington Nuclear Facility has a capacity factor of about 95 per cent (Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2013). Basically, this statistic shows that the reactors in the facility operate at their highest potential 95 per cent of the time. The Darlington Nuclear Facility is able to

there are currently 439 nuclear reactors for commercial power in 31 countries across the world. I simply suggest we add 1 or two more. The power introduced by the invention of nuclear weapons and power at the end of ww2 was immense and the potential of this power has only grown since then.there is a growing gap between what renewables can provide us and what we need them to provide to avoid a climate catastrophe and nuclear power is a viable way to fill that gap. But we don’t, because we often connect nuclear power to nuclear weapons and only remember the fall outs rather than the steady constant stream of power to homes and businesses across the world. We also fear its waste,the barrels of “toxic sludge” that we see paraded on tv and movies, immensely dangerous waste products. Instead of this we should be fearing the carbon pumped into our atmosphere every day.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

Many nuclear plants built in the 60’s and 70’s are coming to there 40 year life span, and the concern of safety in discussed by all the guest as something that needs to be address. Peterson explains that even though some have ran there course, they can still operate under strict regulations and utilize new management systems such as the passive system as previously mentioned and the new modular constructive technologies. The textbook, Dire Predictions, urges us to “strive for greater efficiency in power generation, with the use of carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy sources. Carbon-free energy such as nuclear, have been making advancement, since the failed operations such as Fukushima, but can only determine its potential with the age of

With the evidence supporting climate change growing stronger every year it is likely only a matter of time until real change in regards to mitigation policies are seen. The decision to repeal the carbon tax was inherently a bad decision given that no alternative solution was put forward and the long-term climate change goals of Australia will now be a challenge to meet. Carbon management must become integrated into all Australian businesses and more research must be done to help put forward more legislation that would moderate the impact of climate change.

Today, 30 countries worldwide are operating 438 nuclear reactors to generate energy, 67 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries and 13 countries rely on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity. We can find France, Slovakia and Hungary lying on the top list of nuclear energy producing countries and a total of 10.9 % of the world’s energy being generated by these means. This sustains the evidence of a new energetic revolution that is expanding faster than ever before.

Nuclear power plants provide the most economically efficient, safe, and sustainable source of power generation available to our generation; however it comes with it’s own set of issues that must be dealt with to mitigate any potential harm to the environment or population. One of the larger issues is that once the reactor has attained initial criticality, it is never truly “off”. The reactor will still produce heat due to decay of non-stable isotopes within it caused by fission.