Latest Entries »

Although I’m stern on the use of nuclear energy, I must admit that there are some cons, including the storage of radioactive waste, and the “radiation problems.” When faced between the decision of nuclear energy and fossil fuels, the pros outweigh the cons in favor of the nuclear energy side. They will help buy time in a clean an efficient way for newer alternatives of energy. The storage of radioactive waste is just solved by time, and when the time comes the waste may be dumped. Although this debate has been going on for several years, they may be no actual action taken unless America realizes that the dependence on foreign oil and the environment depends on a cleaner source of energy. Until then, I believe nuclear energy is the way to go.

To those people who say that the uranium supply needed for the dependence on nuclear energy will only last 80 years need to think ahead rather than right now. 80 years is a very long time when it comes to the field of innovations. Notice the amount of technology that  has expanded in the last 35 years. Then begin to  imagine how much it will expand, especially in the field of energy where there is such high demand. Going along with nuclear energy will help increase the time needed to find alternative ways of energy and decrease the dependence on foreign oil.

Why not just stay with oil?

Nuclear produces near-zero greenhouse gas. The effect fossil fuels have on the environment is so poisonous and toxic.

According to the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute): The Clean Air Act of 1970 established limits on the emission of nitrogen oxides sulfur dioxide, and that nuclear power plants do none of these polluted acts.



Honestly, I believe the pros overpower the cons when it comes to the nuclear power becoming a main form of energy. Nuclear energy is a sustainable way to use energy without the extraneous amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the air everyday. Fossil fuels are exhaustible resources which will one day eventually run out. In 2007, America  imported about of 3,600,000,000  barrels. Of the 3.6 billion barrles, the U.S. imported from a total of 45 different countries. Dependence on OPEC countries exporting oil into America is at an increase, but with this energy crisis, new forms of energy must be upheld. The dependence on foreign oil in countries that are unstable such as Iraq questions are priority for energy security. If this supply were to be cut off, America would be in an energy crisis, but that’s where nuclear energy plays it’s part. If nuclear energy was put into play, Western countries could achieve independence for energy.

Also, Vattenfall Energy produced an environmental statement expressing that the nuclear power plants they own let out less than one hundreth the greenhouse gases of coal or Gas fired power stations. Virtually, the use of nuclear energy would cause little to no pollution.

Furthermore, In the book Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power by Ian Lowe and Barry Brook, the authors argue the nuclear energy’s pros and cons. It presents facts such as how renewable energy won’t solve the energy and climate crises. Also the book informs us that the true costs for the fossil fuels are lower than renewable resources and fossil fuels. The book also states that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. Burning coal, gasoline, and other fossil fuels increase Co2 levels, which in turn causes harm to the environment. It also harms the people due Carbon dioxide filling into the air. If anything, Nuclear power provides a cleaner and safe way to use energy.