The Nuclear Future
By: Jonathan D Livers
Eng 102: Michael D Benton
Roughly ninety-two percent of Kentucky is powered by coal energy; the other eight percent is a combination of natural gas and hydro power sources. Kentucky is one of the 19 states out of 50 that don’t have nuclear power. Of those 31 states that do have nuclear power, they are home to 104 power plants. One of these nuclear power plants could eliminate at least 3 of the 20 coal power plants in the state of Kentucky, so why haven’t we chosen the smaller route? What at the dangers of nuclear power plants? Would the benefits outweigh the cons? These are all question that should be asked; answered.
I’m all for nuclear power, but people take glimpse of our past encounters with this outrageous energy source and think that it’s a disaster. No one takes in consideration the development of resources which the human mind has come up with in the past couple decades. Such key event as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were small flaws that put the last few twist to lock on the cabinet of nuclear power.
In the time that nuclear power was put on hold, petroleum consumption increased exponentially, almost doubling the use. During the early 90’s “new energy source” was all the rage, but fell off shortly due to the lack to resources, but nearly two decades later, here we are again, the same question in mind, how can we save our planet?
Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. And so, we need energy miracles.
-Bill Gates
It’s about time for us to come of the conclusion that we have been too dependent on oil and coal for energy, both which are harmful to our environment. Not saying that nuclear is the safest alternative, but it’s a worthy competitor, and it has the potential to being the future of our power sources. Just a few ounces of uranium (the main material in nuclear power) can replace tons of coal emissions. Waste will not be a problem compared to how much we save by stopping coal consumption. Prices of energy cost would diminish, CO2 emissions would slow down, and we would be one step closer to finding a substitute fuel. Of course I feel that petroleum is a very important part of the United States’ industrial world, but at least we can try, try to find the power source in which doesn’t include the US having to purchases billions of dollars of fuel each year from across seas. Maybe we could start saving money and worrying about the problem we have on our own soil, one being our national debt, stop stripping the land of so many of its resources, and give America something to look forward to beside all the bad news we always hear about. Nuclear power can be a start to solving our problems, it may not be the complete answer, but it’s a start.
Citation Page
Huber, Peter W. "Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power." City Journal. Winter 2005: 1. Print. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html>.
in text: (Huber 1)
Exner, Rich. "104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states: Sunday's numbers." Cleveland.com. March 20, 2011: 1. Print. <http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/03/104_nuclear_power_reactors_in.html>.
In text: (Exner 1)
Paper’s Sources
Huber, Peter W. "Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power." City Journal. Winter 2005: 1. Print. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html>.
Freind, Chris. "America Needs More Nuclear Power." NewsMax: NewsMax. 2011. 1. Print. <http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/nuclear-power-threemileisland-chernobyl/2011/03/15/id/389541>.
books
Herbst, Allan M. Nuclear Energy Now. 1. 1. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2007. 1-199. Print. <http://books.google.com/books?id=XR9b-4PiT4sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=us+needs+more+nuclear+power&hl=en&ei=MNJwTuG1OsTj0QGWsqHqCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=us%20needs%20more%20nuclear%20power&f=false>.
No comments:
Post a Comment