Archive for March, 2012


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.

Advertisements

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.

Sources:

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/