Nuclear Energy Essay

Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. "Renewables" like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. “Currently, there are 103 commercial nuclear power plants producing electricity in the United States, located at 64 sites in 31 states. They are, on average, 24 years old, and

There are many power sources that can be utilized for our everyday lives; to heat our homes , run our toasters, and light our hallways. Most of that power either directly or indirectly comes form the sun(such as solar energy and fossil fuels). But one energy source that derived by the pure ingenuity of man is nuclear power. As with all power sources there are positive and negative externalities. For example: the burning of fossil fuel releases SOX and NOX into the air which can cause harm to the health of humans ie. negative externality. But what is the the environmental effect of using nuclear energy? What is the cost of extracting all this energy from so little?

Snapchat. Facebook. Pinterest. Instagram. Twitter. All of these have had their time on the top apps list. They originally exploded and most got their ideas on that app, minutes in. It was immediately decided what age range this app was made for(is it inappropriate for children?), how many people would use it, and more. Quite alike, Nuclear energy has exploded, both figuratively and literally. Although in this case Nuclear energy is made for all ages. We all need energy and the solution of getting rid of nuclear power is not the long term solution. We want electricity and also safety at the maximum level. Nuclear power is one of the main go to energy sources when it comes to protecting our planet. It provides clean, safe and non toxic electricity. Other options that are trying to replace nuclear energy have the downsides that could potentially end life. With me constantly talking about Nuclear energy, you might be wondering, what is Nuclear energy?

The United States of America’s population constitutes just 5% of the world’s population, yet it consumes nearly 24% of the world’s energy. Because of our huge consumption of energy, we harm our environment in different ways, like producing massive amounts CO2 emissions which have catastrophic effects, such as climate change, that directly impact us and the different forms of life around us. To cut down on these negative effects, researchers have developed more environmentally friendly methods of energy production. The debate now centers around which energy method is better than the rest. Although there are many energy-generating methods, we will focus on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as nuclear power. Shrader-Frechette opposes nuclear energy because it 's seen as unclean, expensive, and dangerous. Senator Lamar Alexander opposes wind and solar energies because the sheer amount of space required by these energy producing methods does more harm to our environment than good. Even if Shrader is right about the disadvantages of nuclear power, which she is not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared to the dangers of the impact solar and wind power would have on the environment. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear power -- the one relatively safe, available, energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be

Examples are making sub-zero refrigerator, heat reflective windows or to use of hybrid cars. The next step is replacing carbon emitting energy producer to cleaner ones. According to Solomon et al. (2011), the current clean sources of energy include sunlight, wind, rain, and tides. These are harnessed through photovoltaic cells, windmills, and hydroelectric turbines.

The environmental impacts of nuclear energy are disputed by Diesensorf (2005) and Was (2015). Diesendorf believes that pollutions of nuclear energy are serious while Was (2015) describe it as clean though there are environmental risks. Lenzen, 2008 (cited in Diesensorf, 2005) states that greenhouse gas emission of nuclear energy which based on high degree of uranium mining is 60g/kWh, which is much higher than wind power (10-29g/kWh). He further explains that the decrease of ore grades would increase the use of diesel, which would skyrocket the demand for mining process. Consequently, carbon emission of nuclear energy rises to 131r/kWh in low-grade uranium. Diesendorf (2015) describe this phenomenon is unacceptable. Was (2015), in contrast,

Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear

“A tiny speck of plutonium-239, as little as three millionths of a gram, can cause lung cancer. One pound of plutonium-239 contains enough specks to kill nine billion people instantly” (Pringle 26). Plutonium-239 is a human-made element, also known as the most dangerous substance on earth. As a by-product of uranium fission, plutonium-239 is created by generating electricity from nuclear sources. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is hazardous and threatening to health. The use of nuclear energy should be banned as evidenced by the number of accidents, health effects, and global impact.

Another area of technology that the automobile industry is working on is fuel cells. Even though it is predicted that automobiles using fuel cells will not be released until 2010, Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV), may be the next revolutionary idea in automobiles. FCVs reflect a completely new way of thinking about automobiles. FCVs use electric

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a

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.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?