Nuclear Future : An Integral Part Of Human Society Essay

As the worlds population continues to grow, the energy demand will also increase posing an important question as to how will we keep up with the demand, and which source of energy will be the most efficient and be a better source for human sustainability. Fuel for nuclear energy is abundant and is derived from the fission of uranium and plutonium. It meets the definition of sustainable by being able to provide energy for long time periods without depriving future generations; it releases very little greenhouse gases, is less expensive, and is a reliable form of

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.

Arjun Makhijani, a prominent researcher for The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, claims that today’s emission rate of carbon dioxide is about nine gigatons annually and that the Earth only has the capability to absorb 3 gigatons annually—thus a problem arises. Furthermore, Makhijani states that about 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. With those shocking statistics in mind, fossil fuel’s emission of carbon dioxide is thought to be the leading cause of climate change—which is responsible for irreversible and catastrophic changes to the Earth. Yet, scientist had tremendous difficulty finding a safe, effective, and efficient form of energy supply that will met the great consumption rate. Many prominent scientist suggest that nuclear power is the most plausible explanation and solution to the fuel crisis. However, despite nuclear power having a exponentially lower emission rate, it presents its own hazards and threats—such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents. These accidents have many activists and politicians cautious about the prospect of using nuclear power as a complete alternative to fossil fuels—regardless nuclear plants are responsible for 11% of the energy supplied to the world annually (World Nuclear Association.) What many of the activist and politicians seem to overlook is that fossil fuels are an indefinite energy supply and will quite possible run out within

Throughout this world, we use various equipment that need certain energy requirements in order for them to run properly. Two of the utmost imperative sources of energy in our world today come from coal and nuclear power. Still, a great deal of citizens of this world are unaware of the impacts of nuclear power whether it be positive or negative due to the fact that nuclear power has not existed as long as coal power has. However, as nuclear power becomes a major resource of energy, we as citizens must determine which is more fitting for not only us, but our environment. As this report continues on, you will come to find the history of each of these resources along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Concluded from this research was the concept that nuclear power is worthier for America as a whole. Included below are the specific points as to why nuclear power is far superior for American citizens and our environment. However, the main notion to be taken from this report is the view that we need to become further educated on the energy resources present in this world and be able to determine how we can become more efficient and contribute less to climate change in the long run.

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

In this section we analyze various social impacts associated with the establishment and operation of nuclear power plants. The impacts of nuclear plants on nearby communities and people living there have been a controversial issue since long time. Nuclear power generation and utilization has several impacts on society which includes real estate, property values, employment, taxes, social services, physical and mental health, economic development and cultural parameters, etc.

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.

Nuclear energy was likewise discovered to be useful in naval tactics and in sourcing electricity. As technology has significantly advanced and knowledge has expanded beyond measures, the realm of nuclear engineering has indeed achieved scientific milestones. In practice of modern times, nuclear energy is manufactured within power plants, capable of supporting an outstanding amount of electricity (World Nuclear Association). However, this limited method of energy production is thought to be dangerous. Nuclear engineering is certainly one complex subject and is foreign to the majority of the world population. Within a nuclear power plant, reactors are employed to force uranium ions to undergo the process of nuclear fission; nuclear fission is the separation of atoms, the smallest unit of matter. This splitting of uranium ions releases energy, thus, producing usable heat. Heat is crucial to not only nuclear energy production; rather, heat is necessary in all power plants. Such will then become the steam that gyrates turbines. These turbines are coupled with electromagnets which, finally, yield electricity (How Nuclear Reactors Work). One foremost flaw of nuclear power is the consequential radioactive waste that must be monitored for a long while following disposal. Nevertheless, as resources upon this planet are surely depleting, original forms of energy production are mandatory. In consideration of such, nuclear power plants have proved to be both efficient

According to the World Energy Outlook report in 2006, nuclear energy is listed as the least efficient measure in reducing GHG emission, whereas improved energy efficiency had contributed 65% of the total reduction. Therefore I believe that while we are waitting to switch to a “real” sustainable energy source, we should focus on improving energy efficiency and conservation instead of risking the distinction of mankind by continue developing nuclear industries. Unlike, nuclear power, improving energy efficiency not only reduce the GHG emission on electricity generation, it can also be applied to a much broader context, such as transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing which in total contribute to over 50% of world's total GHG emissions (browse energy and climate data). Nevertheless, continue to expand renewable energy is also a good option for replacing our dependence on nuclear energy. Numerous scientific studies have already shown how wind and solar energy are already cheaper to operate than nuclear energy, while being able to generate more energy than nuclear given equal resources ( ). In Europe, even though Germany has less wind resource than Britain, it was reported that currently the electricity generated by wind in Germany has already surpassed the nuclear generated energy in Britain (Barnaby and Kemp, “Future,” p.

In today’s society, we have an almost immediate demand for an alternative source of energy. This is due to the gradual depletion of our finite sources of fossil fuels as well as due to the damage of the burning of fossil fuels to our environment. All of these alternative sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear power come with their upsides and downsides. The most controversial of which, nuclear power, also manages to have the most potential in the near future due to its lack of a carbon emission output.

Nuclear energy has been a fundamental subject of examination for a good length of time. Everybody knows global warming is going on yet nobody entirely knows the most ideal approach to battle it. Though it is one arrangement we're attempting to make sense of, is it the best one? Numerous think nuclear energy is the solution, some believe it's too excessive and perilous. Demonstrating there are a few difficulties and issues there are also many focal points to form an opinion on. Everybody's side is a critical

Nuclear power is presently a key way of providing energy for our world. As of 2011, power plants generated about 14% of the whole world’s electricity (Cole). Nuclear power also does not use fossil fuels and therefore is a low pollutant. However, there are significant costs of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants emit radiation and can leak causing environmental damage and significant health risks. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to build and maintain. Terrorists can easily turn the nuclear fission in the plant into a deadly weapon. There are also better alternatives to provide our world with power. The sun is a natural source that many are starting to use as a source of electricity. Water and wind

In the following, the benefits and drawbacks of generating electricity with the use of nuclear energy will be discussed.

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.

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.