The Importance of Reversing Climate Change

The world is running out of fossil fuels and this decrease in supply is causing an increase in price for the consumer. There is a growing need to find alternative sources for energy. The World Energy Council predicts that the world will be using 50 percent more energy by the year 2020 (Morgan). Among the options for more energy are wind, solar, water, and nuclear powers. Nuclear power gives far more bang for the buck than the others. Although it can produce vast amounts of energy there is a lot of skepticism about the benefits of nuclear energy. Most of the critics say that nuclear power is far too dangerous for widespread use. At the present time nuclear energy seems to be the best alternative source over

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).

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.

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.

In both of the supporting articles over the use of nuclear energy, there is a proficient amount of strengthens and weakness in both arguments. Though the use of the background and prior information given in the preclude, it allows the reader to understand the basics of nuclear energy and the way both authors are approaching to present their ideas. Using this analytical preface most of the information presented, allows the reader to have an idea on which side is more appealing to their choosing. Allowing the reader to get a perspective on both sides of the argument will insight them on the information presented and will ultimately give a substantial amount of evidence to back their claims.

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.

From the electricity that kept my home warm and powered the lights at school to providing employment to both my parents for the past 30 years, nuclear power has been at the center of my life growing up. In Wadsworth, Texas, the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company has been a way a life thousands of people by providing nearly 1200 jobs and providing carbon-free electricity for over 2 million people. However, this is just one example in just one state in the United States. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11 percent of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power plants and for 13 countries it provides more than 25 percent of their country’s energy. However, even though nuclear power has made its mark as a global competitor in the realm of green energy, incidents such as 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have created a global sense of uneasiness. On top of this underlying fear, the huge building costs of new nuclear plants has lead to a stunt in the growth of nuclear energy even though operation costs for nuclear energy at $0.0219/kW is less than that of coal ($0.023/KW) and almost half that of gas ($0.0451/kW) (IER). Even though nuclear energy has had some setbacks, it is still safer (short-term and long-term) than the carbon-producing alternatives. The question at hand is whether we should take an utilitarian perspective by giving more serious consideration to the long-term effects of the carbon-emitting energy sources and whether we can overcome our

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 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.

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.

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.