Essay on Nuclear Energy as an Alternative for Fossil Fuels

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

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.

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?

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

As we know, greenhouse gases have been one of the major causes for climate change. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the primary source of greenhouse gas emission is from electricity production which is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels. Over several decades, mankind has spent countless amount of resources, trying to find a suitable energy substitute for fossil fuels in order to stabilize climate change. Unsurprisingly, due to its powerful nature, nuclear energy has been one of the most popular and developed technology around the world. In this paper, I am going to discuss the fundamental flaws in nuclear energy, and the potential danger it could bring to not only the mankind today, but also tomorrow. In addition,

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

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

There is often speculation surrounding Nuclear energy. There were reports that the British applied to the United States for permission to carry out their first atomic bomb in the flats of Nevada. These reports were met with much speculation due to the physical size and observable flaws in the British program . This highlights an important problem with Nuclear energy production. Many countries pursue Nuclear energy for weaponry or other status symbols. When Nuclear Energy is harnessed, it can have a significant effect. Developments in Nuclear energy have had a great impact on global carbon emissions and have significantly decreased the footprint that energy production leaves on the environment. The progress that the American West and other industrialized countries have made in Nuclear energy and other renewable methods provide a reliable alternative to other energy sources that increase carbon emissions.

Thirty-one years ago today, on April 26th 1986, “a sudden surge of power during a reactor systems test destroyed Unit 4 of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl” {1}. Nuclear energy can be unstable, but there has been a growing comeback of enthusiasm in nuclear energy as a renewable energy source. Before I continue talking about nuclear energy, let me provide you some background on it. It all started in Germany in 1895 when he started to experiment with cathode rays

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.

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.

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?