Nuclear Energy As An Alternate Source Of The World 's Energy

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

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.

75% of all electricity used in France is supplied by the clean, pollution-free energy source of nuclear power (Newsela, 2). However, most of the United State’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. 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.

Nuclear power is a much greener option than others, and can help prevent the devastating effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Burning fossil fuels releases thousands of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) into the air that cause a variety of serious environmental problems. The emissions cause global warming which leads to the melting of polar ice caps and the raising of oceans. This also causes acid rain and air pollution which pollutes water sources, accelerates erosion and damages ecosystems (Pacific

In 2013, a study conducted by NASA shows that nuclear energy has “prevented 1.84 million deaths from 1971 to 2009 with an average of 79,000 deaths (prevented)/ year from 2000 to 2009 (Kharecha and Hansen, 3). Even if one were to include the death tolls from both Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear energy ranks last in death per unit generated per year (see fig. 2). And although nuclear waste is toxic and harmful to humans (as it can cause cancer and death), it is usually stored in a safe location away from other resources and most importantly, away from humans. On the other hand, the toxic byproducts of fossil fuels are being released into the air every day. And by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned, countless cases of cancer and lung disease as well as coal mining accidents have been avoided. For as long as nations use fossil fuels, nuclear energy saves much more lives than it

The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights. If we hope to continue consuming energy on the scale that we currently do, we need to find a better way to produce it. Fortunately, the best contender is an energy generation form that the United States is already familiar with, albeit equally as uncomfortable with. Currently, nuclear power makes up 19% of our country’s power generation, and with community and government support, the industry could spread its wings further to help relieve the dependence we have on burning fossil fuels [3]. Many people have misconceived many ideas about nuclear power, believing that it is expensive, unsafe by its very nature, and a threat to a

According to Natural Resources Defense Council, existing nuclear plants tend to be less costly because their fuel costs tend to be lower than the fossil fuel plant (2007). Another advantage is that due to its accuracy, safety, and small size it does not matter where they put it because it will not harm anyone (Williams, 2014). However, others point out that their capital costs are excessively high and that it takes an extremely long amount of time to build a nuclear plant, which represents an opportunity cost because it deflects attention and money away from renewables (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). Additionally, nuclear plants have a limited lifespan of 30 years maximum, which means that they would have to pay the high capital costs again and illustrates a clear disadvantage (Nuclear Energy”, 2015). According to Williams, another disadvantage is that the nuclear plants are large and tend to be troublesome in finding a secure location, due to a possible accident

An organization called The Friends of the Earth states the government says it will cost £74/MWhr. in actuality the nuclear plants are significantly more costly than anticipated. After the company need for profit it will cost over £164/MWh. They have an example of how much of an unnecessary cost burden on energy consumers nuclear energy is. With the construction costs spiralling out of control at the reactors currently being built in Flamanville, France and Olkiluoto, Finland, being years behind.

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

As a result, numerous countries are creating more nuclear power plants. From the 1990s, the rate of nuclear power plants constructed increased because of technological and managerial, deregulation, and safety improvements.

By 2030 the demand for electricity worldwide will have increased immensely due to economic growth and increased use of electric transportation. Each year we invest hundreds of billions of dollars into finding an alternative energy source, but when it comes down to it we are decades away from finding something that is able to produce electricity on a mass scale. However, we already have the option of nuclear power and it is overlooked every time. Environmentalists, scientists, and community activists ridicule the idea of nuclear power due to its high cost, safety factors, and nuclear waste. The Nuclear Information and Research Service is a group that discourages the further production of nuclear energy. They argue that even strictly regulated storage facilities are subject to disasters like contaminating underground water supplies, and terrorist attacks. They also argue that nuclear energy is far to expensive to be the answer to the energy crisis. Since the year 2000 estimated cost for nuclear power plants

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.