Switzerland Is Best Known For Their Cheese, Chocolate And Watches

Energy has easily become one of the most important necessities for our everyday lives. Without it we would simply not be able to have transportation or be able to gather any of our other resources that we depend on. If at anytime our energy supply ceases or no longer attainable the results may be horrific. However, it is quite easy to keep this from happening, It is crucial that our current population realize the importance of sustaining our present non-renewable resources. An examination of all the present energy issues and human impacts of energy conservation along with the a resource plan will show importance of energy

Most of the energy that we use comes from fossil fuels like petroleum and coal that provide electricity and gas to power our growing energy needs. These fossil fuels, currently providing most of our home energy needs are finite resources, which mean that, they will eventually run out. Furthermore, the world’s population is growing rapidly. Countries are becoming more industrialised and are using notable amount of energy. Individuals are consuming nearly twice as much as energy as they were using 30 years ago. In Australia itself, the total amount of energy consumed by households has increased over the past two decades and is forecast to increase. This could be due to the dependence of our standard of living on easily available energy. Between

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.

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.

Canada has the potential to be a “sustainable energy superpower” due to the vast amount of resources it contains. It has a large landmass and diversified geography which can be used to produce renewable energy from such resources; watermill, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy. Renewable energy is energy obtained from natural resources that are able to be naturally replenished within a human lifespan (Natural Resource Canada, 2014). Currently, fossil fuel burning is the major source of energy in Canada and although it can be re-used, the process is so long that it is considered to be non-renewable. Also, fossil fuel burning for coal, natural gas, and petroleum gas pollutes the environment with greenhouse gases on a large scale, causing global warming. Non-renewable energy is taken from sources that re available on Earth in limited quantity, likely vanishing within fifty to sixty years from today (Conserve Energy Future, 2014). Thus, it is important for Canada to invest their money on resorting to more environmentally friendly and renewable ways to make electricity. Being a developed country, Canada has the financial stability to purchase the technologies over time in order to produce renewable energy. In addition, many organizations and the government have taken a step to educate the society about issues regarding energy usage, and to create programs which conserve energy for the future. In the future generations, Canada will be able to generate sufficient

On the same note, the energy revolution spoken of above brings forth another advance in the ongoing global climate situation. The nature of the Kyoto Protocol calls for nations to increase research and eventually semi-convert their energy usage to accommodate for cleaner energy. Products such as solar power, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, and hydropower are now widely being studying to create processes that use less coal, oil, and natural gas in production. Altogether the results have

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,

Renewable energy has currently become a significant aspect in the countries generation, combination, and a constitution focus of government policy for energy, and environmental protection. As a result of public’s growing responsibility for the environment and constantly binding rules, and regulations of emission in the electric power industry, government has facilitated policies to boost the amount of renewable energy in the electricity generation portfolio. Additionally, the generation of electricity from renewable resources creates insufficient, and frequently, zero emissions of pollutants that comes from traditional fossil fuel production technologies. The additional use of renewable energy aids utilities in their emission agreement obligations. Furthermore, the anticipation of agreement with any future carbon emissions management would further toughen the incentive to move towards cleaner electricity creating technologies (Langwith, 2009).

In Hans Blix's essay, Nuclear Power and the Environment, Blix suggests that nuclear power should be the main source of power to meet the constantly growing energy needs of the world. He discusses why fossil fuels should be discontinued due to their environmental impact as well as renewable energy sources and how they can not meet the growing demand for energy. Blix makes a strong, persuasive argument for the use of nuclear power through his use of statistics, his discussion of the alternatives, as well as his refuting of the common misconceptions about nuclear power.

It is inevitable that comes one day, finite source of energy will be depleted, and for this reason, there is a need to shift to a renewable source of energy. On the other hand, renewable source of energy is not the current solution because of technology and capital hindrance. However, there is nuclear power as an alternative of a clean finite source of energy. On the other hand, McCright and Dunlap (2011) argue that people should implement measures that cut the amount of energy required. These measures include recycling and reusing, change lighting and use that conserve energy.

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.

It is a clean, practical alternative that would satisfy the world economy's growing energy demand." Today there are 212 nuclear power plants in the world and the number is expected to rise to 250 in the next five years. Nuclear power already provides 75% of power in France and 20% here in the United States (McQuinn). Like nuclear energy, wind energy is also becoming more popular and efficient. Large wind turbines powered completely by wind gusts generate up to 233 megawatts of power every minute (Roberts 12). Homeowners and farmers can now own their own wind turbines and have their unused energy purchased by energy companies. Wind energy is very popular in Germany especially where at least 33% of the countries energy comes completely from wind turbines (Roberts 13).

Another key task is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions since the energy transfer to renewable and clean energy sources will help to get rid of emissions from power plants based on coal and natural gas. In Germany, 30 % of CO2 emissions accounted for the production of electricity (Energiewende 27). According to the Chairman of the Expert Council on Ecology, Martin Faulstich, Germany can achieve a full transition to renewable energy sources (i. e. rejection of nuclear power, oil, gas, and coal) by 2050. In accordance with his words, the plan is feasible from a financial point of view, and in the long term this strategy is economically more profitable. The program of energy sector modernization in Germany, which provides that the share of renewable energy, including biogas, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and solar