Nuclear PowerEssay Preview: Nuclear PowerReport this essayJeremy MartinezMrs. Shana MuñozENGL-1774111/16/12Nuclear power argument research essayThe only solution to the energy crisis in the United States is nuclear power because of the fact that our natural resources are diminishing. One of the most important problems the world is facing today is limited supply of energy resources. As our population increases, so will our demand for electricity, therefore it is essential to find a replacement for fossil fuels before they are exhausted.
Nuclear energy has been under great speculation for some time now as an alternative to fossil fuels. The debate around the use of nuclear power centers mainly on its safety, but the major issue is whether or not limitless energy resources are a good thing for our society and planet. Nuclear energy is such an amazing source of conductivity that has been shunned away from proper use in the past years because of the negative media it has been receiving. Most countries today are becoming more and more dependent on nuclear power as a source for electricity. While nuclear power does have its controversies, it is a far cleaner energy technology than fossil fuel plants. Despite all the cosmic energy that the word “nuclear” invokes, the nuclear power plant stands on the border between humanitys greatest hopes and its deepest fears for the future.
Sovereign Republic and Unwavering Researched Questions
Q: Are you worried about becoming a nuclear power emitter?
A: Yes. As the American nuclear power industry continues to grow, many of those who are currently receiving benefits from NRC-10 subsidies continue to see those benefits as less than a lifeline. It is only just as true for those who are simply receiving subsidies for new plants in a country as it is for those who are having their benefits expire, leaving only the benefit of some new capacity available for the future generation of energy they are producing. And there will come a time in the future when power consumers will not have as much incentive to choose an energy source they could save on electricity costs by simply being able to have nuclear power as a utility.
Q: What’s changed? When will the United States move?
A: This is the ultimate question: Will the U.S. become a nuclear power exporter or a nuclear power emitter if there is no real way that American energy production would be able to meet these energy needs? If this option were to be presented as an option by Congress, there is a very strong possibility that it will be considered. But how close is it to being a nuclear manufacturer than any other nuclear power exporter? Of the six existing nuclear factories and four that are expected to take construction in a few years, and the only existing building having the capacity to meet U.S. regulatory requirements, only Nuclear Energy Technologies, a group led by the former head of nuclear industry development for the U.S. and China, is planning to move into its new four-mile site in South Dakota. But many experts believe that the other building is likely to be demolished if it is ever built.
And will the nuclear industry get any other benefits in the future?
There are various factors that could force a nuclear company to invest in nuclear plant development, and the likelihood that it will end up with additional nuclear plants around the world, could be very slim. For example, even if the nuclear industry were able to purchase land in Argentina for nuclear facilities, even less would be available in the United States.
Q: Will you be able to secure the necessary government certification for a nuclear plant?
A: The U.S. Government Agency for International Development (USAID) has certification on the facility with the highest level of certainty and is working on how to best prepare this entity for a successful and sustainable transition. The Agency has even prepared a document to indicate how much will be awarded to the facility. There is also concern the project may be cancelled. Nevertheless, the Agency is eager to provide an alternative to an unsustainable nuclear energy development model.
Now, if Congress was to give incentives to the United States to reduce the reliance on nuclear energy as a future energy source, the United States would be able to increase nuclear fuel prices dramatically. That would make nuclear power less expensive to supply, more affordable to build, and more energy-efficient to use when electricity prices go through the roof. I believe that much of this potential investment is in the development of renewable energy sources such Ascorbic, LNG, and wind. I don’t know of a company that hasn’t already begun to build nuclear plants. I think we may have to figure out what kind of a pathway that could go ahead for nuclear power generators, and
Sovereign Republic and Unwavering Researched Questions
Q: Are you worried about becoming a nuclear power emitter?
A: Yes. As the American nuclear power industry continues to grow, many of those who are currently receiving benefits from NRC-10 subsidies continue to see those benefits as less than a lifeline. It is only just as true for those who are simply receiving subsidies for new plants in a country as it is for those who are having their benefits expire, leaving only the benefit of some new capacity available for the future generation of energy they are producing. And there will come a time in the future when power consumers will not have as much incentive to choose an energy source they could save on electricity costs by simply being able to have nuclear power as a utility.
Q: What’s changed? When will the United States move?
A: This is the ultimate question: Will the U.S. become a nuclear power exporter or a nuclear power emitter if there is no real way that American energy production would be able to meet these energy needs? If this option were to be presented as an option by Congress, there is a very strong possibility that it will be considered. But how close is it to being a nuclear manufacturer than any other nuclear power exporter? Of the six existing nuclear factories and four that are expected to take construction in a few years, and the only existing building having the capacity to meet U.S. regulatory requirements, only Nuclear Energy Technologies, a group led by the former head of nuclear industry development for the U.S. and China, is planning to move into its new four-mile site in South Dakota. But many experts believe that the other building is likely to be demolished if it is ever built.
And will the nuclear industry get any other benefits in the future?
There are various factors that could force a nuclear company to invest in nuclear plant development, and the likelihood that it will end up with additional nuclear plants around the world, could be very slim. For example, even if the nuclear industry were able to purchase land in Argentina for nuclear facilities, even less would be available in the United States.
Q: Will you be able to secure the necessary government certification for a nuclear plant?
A: The U.S. Government Agency for International Development (USAID) has certification on the facility with the highest level of certainty and is working on how to best prepare this entity for a successful and sustainable transition. The Agency has even prepared a document to indicate how much will be awarded to the facility. There is also concern the project may be cancelled. Nevertheless, the Agency is eager to provide an alternative to an unsustainable nuclear energy development model.
Now, if Congress was to give incentives to the United States to reduce the reliance on nuclear energy as a future energy source, the United States would be able to increase nuclear fuel prices dramatically. That would make nuclear power less expensive to supply, more affordable to build, and more energy-efficient to use when electricity prices go through the roof. I believe that much of this potential investment is in the development of renewable energy sources such Ascorbic, LNG, and wind. I don’t know of a company that hasn’t already begun to build nuclear plants. I think we may have to figure out what kind of a pathway that could go ahead for nuclear power generators, and
The way nuclear power works is essentially a very complicated way to boil water. Nuclear power and a coal burning power plants is virtually the same except for the methods that they use in trying to heat water. Nuclear fuel consists of elements of uranium or
plutonium in which an atom has an unusually large nucleus. “The power produced by a nuclear plant is unleashed when the nucleus of one of these atoms is hit by a neutron traveling at the right speed” (science.howstuffworks.com). When the split atom flings off neutrons, it also sends out fragments. Their energy is transferred to water that surrounds the nuclear core as heat. “The fragments also give off sub-atomic particles or gamma rays that generate heat.”(topics.nytimes.com) “Depending on the plants design, the water is either boiled in the reactor vessel, or transfers its heat to a separate circuit of water that boils. The steam spins a turbine that turns a generator and makes electricity. “At equilibrium, nuclear fission produces an additional nuclear fission and the reactor undergoes a chain reaction that can last for months or years”( www.darvill.clara.net). To prevent overheating, control rods made of a material that absorbs neutrons are inserted into the uranium bundle using a mechanism that can raise or lower them” (science.howstuffworks.com). The way operators control the rate of the nuclear reaction is by raising and lowering the control rods. The rods can be lowered completely into the uranium bundle to shut the reactor down in the event of an accident or to change the fuel. In some regards, since nothing is burned or released into the environment during the production of fission, nuclear energy can be considered a more environmentally-friendly energy source than the systems that burn fossil fuels.
Albert Einsteins theory of relatively is an important concept in trying to describe nuclear physics. Einsteins mass-energy relation, the formula E = mc², shows why nuclear reactions yield so much energy from the conversion of a small amount of matter. “In this formula E represents energy, m= mass, and c = the speed of light. The conversion of 1 kilogram
of matter into energy would produce 9 X 1016 joules of energy and is equivalent to 25 billion kilowatt-hours, which would be enough energy to keep billons of 100-watt bulbs burning for 10
hours” (science.howstuffworks.com). “A common example is that if 1 gram of water was converted into pure energy via E=mc², it would contain as much energy as 20,000 tons (18,143 metric tons) of TNT exploding. “Thats why such a small amount of uranium or plutonium can produce such a massive amount of power” (science.howstuffworks.com). In my belief, I believe that the United States should absolutely keep investing in nuclear power because it provides the best low carbon electricity, while providing a high level of output.
Lastly, the binding energy of a nucleus is a measure of the amount of mass converted into energy during the formation of the nucleus. Also, it is equal to the amount of energy that would have to be supplied to the nucleus and would cause it to break up completely into separate nucleons. The article “Nuclear Energy”, talks about how the average binding of energy per nucleon is the measure of the stability of the nucleus and the higher the average binding energy, the more difficult it is to break up the nucleus. I my view, Wind, geothermal, and many other resources simply cant match the huge production of watts of a nuclear plant and other alternative energy sources arent potentially comparable. Nuclear power is unavoidable and its efficiency is a critical innovation needed for todays energy consumption needs, but its still not being put to good use.
A major concern that many people have is an unfounded fear of nuclear power because many people associate nuclear power with the weapons of mass destruction that bare the same name. Ever since the Second World War and Cold War people were able to experience the terrifying consequences that nuclear weapons had and how they were able to
abrogate the whole world. In the article “Nuclear Power Leads to Nuclear Weapons” the author claims “that because of the civil use of the nuclear technology that paves the way for
a military use as well and how the military would be able to abuse this for their own personal gain.” In my opinion, I wouldnt agree with the author and these statements because of the fact of the military of other countries were becoming corrupted and starting wars for their own personal gain. If there was proof of the military in the U.S. or another country being corrupted and abusing weapons of mass destruction then he would be able to make an assumption that the military would abuse this weapon.
Secondly, many people dont really know how to clean up after a nuclear accident. “In early 2012, the Japanese government was trying to find a way to clean up Japan and was handing out an initial $13 billion in contracts meant to rehabilitate the more than 8,000-square-mile region most exposed to radioactive fallout” (topics.nytimes.com).