Nuclear, Coal, And Oil Power: Their Benefits

Fossil fuels are a primary source for providing energy throughout the United States. These sources of energy are causing many problems involving environment, health, and pollution. The solution? Nuclear power. Nuclear power is seen as a green energy that can improve global warming. However, there a more issues that can result from using nuclear power. Even though there are a lot of people who support it, nuclear power can result in world threatening problems. Nuclear waste, expense and time, and the threat regarding to war and terrorism are constant issues related to nuclear power.

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has

These will be just some of the horrifying effects of global warming, if humans don’t make big changes in how we produce our energy. Now that’s a scary thought. 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.

The first advantage of nuclear energy is that it is one of the cleanest sources of energy available to us now. The process of fission doesn’t emit any greenhouse gases or emissions that are linked to global warming. Nuclear energy is currently the largest clean air energy source. It currently occupies 63.3 percent of the emission free electricity in the United States, and this must continue to get expanded upon. With increased use of nuclear energy comes a decreased use in fossil fuels, which would result in a lower carbon footprint for the U.S. This would help slow down the impact of global warming and climate change.

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,

Nuclear power is a much greener option than others, and can help prevent the devastating effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Burning fossil fuels releases thousands of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) into the air that cause a variety of serious environmental problems. The emissions cause global warming which leads to the melting of polar ice caps and the raising of oceans. This also causes acid rain and air pollution which pollutes water sources, accelerates erosion and damages ecosystems (Pacific

If nuclear power production is banned, naturally, we will switch to the most reliable, proven, and popular source of energy: coal. This isn’t good because coal’s effects are worse than nuclear’s. Nuclear power production saves what coal would have destroyed. Without nuclear power, it will be harder to mitigate climate change and air pollution. Historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied would have been supplied by fossil fuels (overwhelmingly coal) which cause higher air pollution mortality and GHG emissions. Nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1979-2009. Nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2 globally between 1971-2009. Nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of coal power plants. Projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden by as much as 16-48%. If nuclear power production was banned, we would be back to coal again. The wastage of resources and pollution of the planet that comes with coal cannot be allowed when there’s the alternative of nuclear power production which lowers mortality and

Expanding the generation of electricity by nuclear fission is the most effective way to reduce global climate change, which is a threat to U.S. national security. Rising sea levels, more extreme storms, heat waves, and drought, increases global conflict and instability. Climate change aggravates poverty, feeds political volatility, and allows more safe havens for terrorist activity abroad. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, across the globe is the only viable way at present to slow the effects of climate change. Increasing our use of nuclear power, which produces electricity without air pollution, is critical to those efforts.

Pollution, being one of the largest environmental problem lessens when is the process of making land, water, air or other parts of the environment dirty and not safe to use. The use of nuclear energy would enable us to have a lot fewer greenhouse emissions. According to Source 2 it implies that, using nuclear energy determined that the amount of greenhouse gases have decreased by almost half because of the utilization of nuclear power.

Nuclear energy as a continual source of energy is risky. Author William Tucker explores the use of uranium for energy in his essay. Tucker explains that although disasters, like the Fukushima meltdown, are scary, every other viable source of energy is also inherently deadly. He tells about a natural gas explosion in Cleveland that leveled an entire neighborhood along with 130 casualties (Tucker 228). Next Tucker explores the benefits our environment can gain from nuclear energy. Nuclear fuel rods are used for 5 years, and can continuously power a city the size of San Francisco for the entire time, without creating any greenhouse gases of any sort (228). And for the negative effects of mining? In just two states there are 732 coal mines. In

On October 24th, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, "Climate Change is real! Climate Change is caused by human activity! Climate Change is affecting all parts of the world.” Sanders speaks about the disruption of ecosystems, the dying of species, and the destruction of earth’s atmosphere. The creation of increased greenhouse gases caused by heavy reliance on fossil fuel energy has disrupted Earth’s equilibrium. Sanders calls for alternative energy in America; hailing countries that have transformed their fossil fuel dependency. Nuclear power is a relevant factor in alternative energy for policy-makers. In the 1950’s, anticipation for nuclear energy was very high, people thought that new advancements in nuclear energy would make electricity free. Nuclear power was successfully implemented for commercial use in 1954 Russia. Since then a total of 438 nuclear reactors were created around the world, including the United States, with 67 still under construction. Nuclear power support has always waned throughout the years, reaching high points of investment when oil prices skyrocketed in the 1970’s. Nuclear power is praised for its efficiency and minimal environmental impacts, however common misconceptions about the danger of nuclear power/power plants, discredit nuclear energy as a better alternative to fossil fuels.

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.

Compared to other energy source, one the plant is built and working properly, nuclear energy has one of the lowest impacts on the environment. During energy production, it does not release any greenhouse gasses like carbon, sulfur, nitrogen and other oxides into the atmosphere. Neither does it release other combustion by product such as ashes that may contribute to climate change, increasing acid rain level, contamination of large cities, destruction of the ozone layer…

Today the U.S. is still enormously dependent on fossil fuels despite the numerous advancements in alternative power sources (Solar panels, wind turbines, etc.). Fossil fuel based energy (our main energy source) is not only expensive, but it also leaves a gigantic impact on the environment. If we continue to depend on this power source, our future generations will have to bear the consequences of our neglect of the earth. The topic of discussion is important to address because it is about the future of our planet, and one way to change for the better is using another source of energy. An alternative that I believe has the potential to be a more suitable choice than fossil fuels, is nuclear energy. Although I know there are people who are apprehensive of this development because of its unpredictable and unwholesome history, I am confident that this is the best path to a healthier and greener earth. Critics of nuclear energy argue that it is too unstable; however it has also been proven that capable of a more serviceable use. This is why I propose that we build new nuclear plants and improve our existing nuclear energy facilities; because I believe this will decrease the dependence the U.S. has on fossil fuel and will reduce environment damage.

As a whole, reliance on fossil fuels contributes to climate change, which will lead to disastrous consequences in the future. One of the many changes that can be made is to use cleaner sources of energy, of which nuclear is one of them.