The Pros And Cons Of Fossil Fueled Power Plants

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

The United States should use nuclear energy to help supplement energy demand because it’s cost-effective, safer for the environment, and a more reliable source of energy than any of the other types of fuel. Some of the topics of interest are cost-effectiveness, recycling options, long term storage options, environmental protection technologies currently being used, and a breakdown of how nuclear energy out performs other sources of power year round.

Although Nuclear Plants cost millions of dollars to produce they are very reliable for energy sources. All nuclear plants produce radioactive waste. To pay for the cost of storing, transporting and disposing these wastes in the United States a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour is added to electricity bills. When one nucleus decays 200,000,000 electron volts are produced, yet vary minimal amounts are collected. Making it possible to capture all the energy would end our need for fossil fuels. Yet the plants that we need must use thousands of tons of water everyday to cool the systems. Hydrogen is also needed for the splitting, yet hydrogen is at an unlimited supply. (nuclearinfo.net)

` The continuous use of fossil fuels is leading the Earth on a path to destruction. Generations of advancement and technological innovation being brought down to rubble. Natural disasters wreaking havoc on innocent people across the world. Temperatures soaring above 125℉ globally. These are the results of the excessive use of fossil fuels. A chief concern in the 21st century is global warming and climate change, and the continued use of fossil fuels for the technology and daily lives of humans is key to blame. Decades ago, these problems were much more daunting and seemingly unsolvable than they are today, with the use of alternative energy sources and new

Throughout the entire modern age, mankind has used fossil fuels to meet its energy requirements. Coal, oil and natural gas have lit homes and powered machinery for centuries, driving civilization forward. But as human

powerplants usually add chlorine or other harmful chemicals to the water they use, which means that these chemicals also get released back into the environment. Another negative impact is the amount of energy being created. Most of heat used for burning the coal and creating steam is wasted. Coal powerplants usually only use 33 – 35% of the coals heat to create electricity. The rest of the heat gets released into the atmosphere or absorbed by cooling water. This is negative as this sudden influx of heat could affect the climate in that area, if not the world. If we have millions of coal power plants (Keep in mind it produces 41% of the electricity) than whats not to say all that heat and other emission from the plants won’t cause global warming?

Modern concerns about global warming have rekindled ideas about nuclear power in the United States but one concern still remains: what is to be done with the waste? Right now most spent nuclear fuel is stored in large casks at the plants where it was used with plans in the works for a common location to store the waste for long periods of time. Long term storage is not the only option, technology exists to take this spent nuclear fuel and remove the unused plutonium and uranium from the waste products to create more fuel. The remaining waste would be stored in a long term facility as discussed above. This process is highly controversial due to economic and safety concerns, but could increase the capacity of a long term storage facility.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are many different type of cost when building a nuclear power plant. The bare plant cost is identified by the engineering and construction cost. The owner’s cost includes land, cooling infrastructure, and associated buildings to name a few. I will explain the bare plant cost and compare to other energy sources. The US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has come up with a formula to determine the cost of construction based on the amount of power the plant will produce. Construction cost mainly includes special materials, sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment. According to the EIA, construction of nuclear power plants may be expensive short term is cost efficient long term. The NEA formula predicts that the cost of construction is about $3,530/kW ($US/kilowatts) in 2013 (Comparisons between different building costs can be seen in table 1). $US/kilowatts means that for every kilowatt produced at the nuclear facility, $3,530 is spent on building cost. In fact, a nuclear power plant in Waynesboro, Georgia has received a

Fossil fuels are a major source of energy in America and throughout the world. The three major fossil fuels are oil, natural gas, and coal. While these three fossil fuels account for most of the energy used in most countries and they are able to provide energy for places around the world at a cheap price, they also account for things like pollution and the climate changes. Each of the fossil fuels has a long process to be prepared for consumer use that causes many environmental problems. The major draw to using fossil fuels is the money that they generate for the economy. Fossil fuels have made people’s lives easier and more dependent on technology.

Right now the solution is either dumping it in the oceans and burying it underground, which is known as vitrification ("Disadvantages Of Nuclear Energy - Conserve Energy Future."). However, the problem with that is once the sea gets contaminated, the animals we fish are sold and when we eat them they will also have high risky levels of radioactivity. It can create new diseases or deformities due to the high levels of radioactivity in the food people are consuming.On the other hand, we have waste being buried that will take thousands of years to be compressed by the walls of dirt around it. Eventually, we would run out of space to bury the nuclear fission waste, what would we do

The use of nuclear power is risky, costly, and dangerous. The chances of having it leak are great, and if it ever does manage to leak somehow, it will take millions to clean up the mess. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to maintain and build. The money that goes to building nuclear plants only to have them taken down again could go to greater causes, such as funding other sources of renewable energy. For example, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power (“Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.” Green America.). Overall, the cons of building and using nuclear power (plants) outweigh

Imagine your old community swimming pool filled with trash. Now as time passes that trash just keeps accumulating; what would you do with that trash? Where does it go or more importantly where can it go? Well, instead of trash imagine nuclear waste. Currently, 122 power plants across the U.S have spent nuclear fuel and waste that is laying unattended with nowhere to go. Our government tried to tackle this problem by

Nuclear power is a widely debated topic about whether or not it is worth the energy produced. Nuclear generators most commonly use a form of uranium to super heat water and produce electricity. However when the fuel rods containing the uranium are spent they leave behind large amounts of spent nuclear waste. This is one of the most serious issues concerning nuclear power production. As of now most of the waste we produce is stored underground but it can take over a thousand years for the radiation levels in this waste to lower enough to be safe. The question we are now facing is how do we deal with all of this waste we keep building up?

Nuclear fuel has been providing energy to the world for around sixty years, and it is the second most used energy source, first being fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is closely chained to the invention of the atomic bomb and is in fact, nuclear fission and/or fusion. The problem with nuclear energy is that while it can provide energy without air pollutants, there is nowhere to put the radioactive nuclear waste. With the spent nuclear fuel, we currently dump it in places relatively far from people or we reprocess it. However there is more to that than meets the eye. "Dumping" is not the best method for dealing with nuclear waste, the best way is to reprocess the nuclear waste because it recovers a portion of reusable energy that can be recycled back into the plant, recovers fuel that can be reused for other purposes and also helps reduce the effects on the environment.

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.