Nuclear Energy Institute

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

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,

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

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.

John Paul Jones states, “It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” The controversy regarding the utilization of nuclear energy focuses upon the assessment of whether the hazards involved are worth the potential benefits. Throughout the progression of mankind, advancements in energy and power production have consistently transformed all lifestyles. Such advancements have, in addition, provided extensive information pertaining to the sciences. Regrettably, resources scarcely exist, and destruction of the planet is inevitable. Innovations for power source fabrication, ones that prove to be renewable, are not optional projects. Such requirements are demanded on every continent. Despite

Therefore, the U.S. policy toward nuclear power is decidedly a national security issue. But, unfortunately, today in in the United States, the future for nuclear energy is not bright.

Nuclear energy as a continual source of energy is risky. Author William Tucker explores the use of uranium for energy in his essay. Tucker explains that although disasters, like the Fukushima meltdown, are scary, every other viable source of energy is also inherently deadly. He tells about a natural gas explosion in Cleveland that leveled an entire neighborhood along with 130 casualties (Tucker 228). Next Tucker explores the benefits our environment can gain from nuclear energy. Nuclear fuel rods are used for 5 years, and can continuously power a city the size of San Francisco for the entire time, without creating any greenhouse gases of any sort (228). And for the negative effects of mining? In just two states there are 732 coal mines. In

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.

There are millions of people who contribute to a large bias against nuclear technology and would prefer the continued use of natural resources. The “use of nuclear power continues to be a highly debatable topic especially because of the recent developments that have resulted in the misuse of nuclear energy produced“ ( Malyshkina, 2010). In the face of nuclear energy’s societal uncertainty, this new advancement in technology offers many benefits for a world that has dwindling natural resources at a rapid rate. According to a study from the University of California-Davis, “at the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready“ (Malyshkina, 2010). Why shouldn’t people

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.

Nuclear energy provides solutions to many concerns over climate change, energy resource availability, air quality and energy security. So far, electricity production through nuclear energy use has developed through three generations.

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.

The goals that need to be hit are: elimination of nuclear waste, no catastrophe causing accidents, offer lower costs for energy, and design facility that has a long longevity. In order to hit these points they must first come up with a different process that does not create nuclear waste. The next necessary step is to continue our safety regulations for nuclear power which has led to us having no nuclear accidents while observing what causes the accidents of other countries like Japan during their earthquake and Chernobyl due to poor facility design. In order to achieve a low cost for energy the facility must first improve the process and additionally design a facility that has a long enough life to not only make it to the breakeven point of the facility, but exceed it excessively to prove its worth. The final question that must be asked is how to achieve unique strategic advantages from others. The way nuclear powered does this compared to conventional power is that it makes a massive amount of power with very little materials and creates little to no waste unlike the massive CO2 emissions of other processes. As for the distinct advantages from nuclear plant to nuclear plant there basically is none. In order to get in the field of nuclear energy you have to be willing to invest copious money and be willing to not see a return on investment for a good while. In other words the market is so niche that it would either have to be invested in by the government, or

Nuclear engineering is the practical application of the breakdown of atomic nuclei and/or other sub-atomic physics, based on the principles of nuclear physics. It includes, but is not limited to, the interaction and maintenance of nuclear fission systems and components— specifically, nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants, and/or nuclear weapons. The field may also include the study of nuclear fusion, medical and other applications of (generally ionizing) radiation, nuclear safety, heat/thermodynamics transport, nuclear fuel and/or other related (e.g., waste disposal) technology, nuclear proliferation, and the effect of radioactive waste or radioactivity in the environment.