search Please enter something
Get Your Essay

Essay About Sustainable Energy Sources And Nuclear Energy

Download paper
Essay, Pages 1 (511 words)
Latest Update: October 3, 2021
Views: 99
Download
Related Topics:

Position Paper on Sustainable Energy SourcesPosition Paper on Sustainable Energy SourcesPosition Paper on Sustainable Energy SourcesAs the world population approaches seven billion people, there is continuing expansion in housing, businesses, roads, and bridges. There also seems to be a necessity for everything to be bigger, faster, stronger, and spectacular to look upon. Unfortunately, while being hypnotized by the marvelous things man has built and achieved, society tends to forget the price to be paid as a result of such unchecked growth. The result is an ever increasing demand for energy that is putting a strain on the ability of natural resources, and the companies that mine them, to keep pace. The problem gets worse when considering that there is limited amount of natural resources, some of which are disappearing at a mind-blowing rate. The most serious and damaging aspects of this unquenchable thirst for energy can be found on any of the seven continents. Among them, there are concerns about the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and contamination of the ocean, rivers, lakes, and groundwater.

The debate about the future of energy is not a question of whether or not to continue using fossil fuels as the primary source. So, what is the focus of debate? First understand that even the big oil companies have even made public statements expressing their desire to find a better alternative to fossil fuels. The fact that oil companies would make these statements publicly, prompts questions that ‘fuel’ the debate. First, what are the possible replacements? The list includes biofuel, nuclear energy, and energy from waste. Then there is renewable energy which includes wind power, solar power, and hydro-electric power. So, which one, or two, would be the most suitable? The answer to that is far more complicated than solving a Rubik’s Cube. All of them are an improvement over the current form and there are a number of supporters for each. But considering the negative aspects of each, renewable energy including solar and wind power, and excluding hydro-electricity, is certainly the best possible choice for the future.

In 2002, the U.K. had 16 operational waste burning facilities including some that used animal excrement as their primary source of power. One source quotes, “The typical energy-from-waste plant generates electricity for 50,000 homes”, while at the same time reducing the amount of waste going into landfills (Coppinger). While the thought of reducing waste and trash making its way into landfills sounds appealing, that is where the appeal ends. The burning of waste poses too many problems starting with public opinion. The image that instantly comes to the minds of most people is smoke and noxious fumes permeating the air that their children, and themselves are breathing. An attempt to build a facility of that kind would lead to a public outcry so fierce, the most stubborn politicians would be forced to come to the defense of their constituents. In addition, the practice of burning waste could be seen as an encouragement to be wasteful, especially in the U.S where no further encouragement is needed.

•

Although not directly associated with the United Kingdom government, the Government of Scotland has an energy industry network of waste storage and transportation facilities all around the world. This facility makes a ‘clean-up’ of unmet waste by using low-carbon and renewable sources. The main benefits of the facility include energy savings along with environmentally friendly and less expensive uses, as well as reduced risk and disposal costs when generating fresh and unused waste.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 102 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 136 147 118 129 130 121 132 135 145 129

Although not directly associated with the United Kingdom government, the Government of Scotland has an energy industry network of waste storage and transportation facilities all around the world. This facility makes a ‘clean-up’ of unmet waste by using low-carbon and renewable sources. The main benefits of the facility include energy savings along with environmentally friendly and less expensive uses, as well as reduced risk and disposal costs when generating fresh and unused waste.

While not directly associated with the United Kingdom government, the Government of Scotland has an energy industry network of waste storage and transportation facilities all around the world. This facility makes a ‘clean-up’ of unmet waste by using low-carbon and renewable sources. The main benefits of the facility include energy savings along with environmentally friendly and less expensive uses, as well as reduced risk and disposal costs when generating fresh and unused waste.

While not directly associated with the United Kingdom government, the Government of Scotland has an energy industry network of waste storage and transportation facilities all around the world. This facility makes a ‘clean-up’ of unmet waste

The Environmental Action Plan 2015 (EEAP) for the U.K. states, “The use of human waste for heat combustion is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Burning the U.K.’s landfill would be like burning the coal mines of South Africa: It will be burning the coal. It will make a massive difference.” However, other states have similar measures in place that address the burning of waste.

The Energy Policy Act of 2010 (EPA) was not introduced without at the same time creating a massive new category of waste of public concern for our society, the poor people of the world.

The EPA was the first of the Obama administration’s eight major “big five” to introduce a ‘green power’ standard in the European Union. The EPA was a huge step in the right direction. When they were introduced in 2008, in the wake of a financial crash, EPA introduced a number of major new energy technology standards. In 2010, the Energy Policy Act of 2010 was an attempt to reprise the EPA. It took a considerable measure, though, by introducing a lot more regulation at the same time. The EPA was then passed in a number of different places throughout the U.S., including Alaska, which is now known as Alaska in my hometown of Minneapolis. It was also passed in 2009 in Hawaii, and again in Alaska. Then, in 2010, the U.S. passed legislation that extended to other parts of the EU, such as the European Economic Area that became Iceland. At the same time, as part of this broader effort, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopted several major new rules: the EIA (Energy Information Administration) has now issued its annual report on its environmental impact assessment, which is the most comprehensive report issued in the U.S. By the end of 2012, the U.S. was the only European Member State where a national act of Congress or the President was required to act as the EIA’s executive agent to set specific rules governing the regulation and use of energy. Over the next six years, FERC became the second-largest agency in the U.S. for green energy regulation, with a net of $500 million of energy regulatory spending.

The EPA has always been one of the most popular agency branches on the political front, and it has helped create a set of rules for regulations as different as fuel efficiency standards, energy efficiency standards, and public safety standards for new energy technologies. The agency has been criticized extensively for its lack of transparency regarding its energy efficiency programs, and for its failure to follow its own public instructions and set clear rules. In recent weeks, however, one of the biggest issues has been a new report on climate change that seeks to clarify why the new rules have so much to do with economic, environmental and energy issues. At the time of the report, there was considerable debate as to whether the new rules would affect the U.S. economy and not about global warming. Yet in September, Energy Secretary Steven Chu offered no such opinion. Although Chu has been very outspoken and critical of climate change for many years, the agency still is largely in charge of planning for climate change. His new report also argues with critics that the carbon savings required to reduce carbon emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels is one of the biggest sources of human cost to the planet. Chu, by contrast, said that he will not be a ‘concerned’ about global warming when he says that climate change is a ‘hoax,’ and that he will do everything he can to reduce his negative impact on the U.S. economy. Chu has expressed no interest in having such an announcement made by the White House. For now, he is optimistic that he will have such a major announcement made to address the climate change “hoax.”

“A recent study from the National Center for Science Education has shown that the U.S.

The Environmental Action Plan 2015 (EEAP) for the U.K. states, “The use of human waste for heat combustion is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Burning the U.K.’s landfill would be like burning the coal mines of South Africa: It will be burning the coal. It will make a massive difference.” However, other states have similar measures in place that address the burning of waste.

The Energy Policy Act of 2010 (EPA) was not introduced without at the same time creating a massive new category of waste of public concern for our society, the poor people of the world.

The EPA was the first of the Obama administration’s eight major “big five” to introduce a ‘green power’ standard in the European Union. The EPA was a huge step in the right direction. When they were introduced in 2008, in the wake of a financial crash, EPA introduced a number of major new energy technology standards. In 2010, the Energy Policy Act of 2010 was an attempt to reprise the EPA. It took a considerable measure, though, by introducing a lot more regulation at the same time. The EPA was then passed in a number of different places throughout the U.S., including Alaska, which is now known as Alaska in my hometown of Minneapolis. It was also passed in 2009 in Hawaii, and again in Alaska. Then, in 2010, the U.S. passed legislation that extended to other parts of the EU, such as the European Economic Area that became Iceland. At the same time, as part of this broader effort, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopted several major new rules: the EIA (Energy Information Administration) has now issued its annual report on its environmental impact assessment, which is the most comprehensive report issued in the U.S. By the end of 2012, the U.S. was the only European Member State where a national act of Congress or the President was required to act as the EIA’s executive agent to set specific rules governing the regulation and use of energy. Over the next six years, FERC became the second-largest agency in the U.S. for green energy regulation, with a net of $500 million of energy regulatory spending.

The EPA has always been one of the most popular agency branches on the political front, and it has helped create a set of rules for regulations as different as fuel efficiency standards, energy efficiency standards, and public safety standards for new energy technologies. The agency has been criticized extensively for its lack of transparency regarding its energy efficiency programs, and for its failure to follow its own public instructions and set clear rules. In recent weeks, however, one of the biggest issues has been a new report on climate change that seeks to clarify why the new rules have so much to do with economic, environmental and energy issues. At the time of the report, there was considerable debate as to whether the new rules would affect the U.S. economy and not about global warming. Yet in September, Energy Secretary Steven Chu offered no such opinion. Although Chu has been very outspoken and critical of climate change for many years, the agency still is largely in charge of planning for climate change. His new report also argues with critics that the carbon savings required to reduce carbon emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels is one of the biggest sources of human cost to the planet. Chu, by contrast, said that he will not be a ‘concerned’ about global warming when he says that climate change is a ‘hoax,’ and that he will do everything he can to reduce his negative impact on the U.S. economy. Chu has expressed no interest in having such an announcement made by the White House. For now, he is optimistic that he will have such a major announcement made to address the climate change “hoax.”

“A recent study from the National Center for Science Education has shown that the U.S.

The Environmental Action Plan 2015 (EEAP) for the U.K. states, “The use of human waste for heat combustion is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Burning the U.K.’s landfill would be like burning the coal mines of South Africa: It will be burning the coal. It will make a massive difference.” However, other states have similar measures in place that address the burning of waste.

The Energy Policy Act of 2010 (EPA) was not introduced without at the same time creating a massive new category of waste of public concern for our society, the poor people of the world.

The EPA was the first of the Obama administration’s eight major “big five” to introduce a ‘green power’ standard in the European Union. The EPA was a huge step in the right direction. When they were introduced in 2008, in the wake of a financial crash, EPA introduced a number of major new energy technology standards. In 2010, the Energy Policy Act of 2010 was an attempt to reprise the EPA. It took a considerable measure, though, by introducing a lot more regulation at the same time. The EPA was then passed in a number of different places throughout the U.S., including Alaska, which is now known as Alaska in my hometown of Minneapolis. It was also passed in 2009 in Hawaii, and again in Alaska. Then, in 2010, the U.S. passed legislation that extended to other parts of the EU, such as the European Economic Area that became Iceland. At the same time, as part of this broader effort, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopted several major new rules: the EIA (Energy Information Administration) has now issued its annual report on its environmental impact assessment, which is the most comprehensive report issued in the U.S. By the end of 2012, the U.S. was the only European Member State where a national act of Congress or the President was required to act as the EIA’s executive agent to set specific rules governing the regulation and use of energy. Over the next six years, FERC became the second-largest agency in the U.S. for green energy regulation, with a net of $500 million of energy regulatory spending.

The EPA has always been one of the most popular agency branches on the political front, and it has helped create a set of rules for regulations as different as fuel efficiency standards, energy efficiency standards, and public safety standards for new energy technologies. The agency has been criticized extensively for its lack of transparency regarding its energy efficiency programs, and for its failure to follow its own public instructions and set clear rules. In recent weeks, however, one of the biggest issues has been a new report on climate change that seeks to clarify why the new rules have so much to do with economic, environmental and energy issues. At the time of the report, there was considerable debate as to whether the new rules would affect the U.S. economy and not about global warming. Yet in September, Energy Secretary Steven Chu offered no such opinion. Although Chu has been very outspoken and critical of climate change for many years, the agency still is largely in charge of planning for climate change. His new report also argues with critics that the carbon savings required to reduce carbon emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels is one of the biggest sources of human cost to the planet. Chu, by contrast, said that he will not be a ‘concerned’ about global warming when he says that climate change is a ‘hoax,’ and that he will do everything he can to reduce his negative impact on the U.S. economy. Chu has expressed no interest in having such an announcement made by the White House. For now, he is optimistic that he will have such a major announcement made to address the climate change “hoax.”

“A recent study from the National Center for Science Education has shown that the U.S.

Another argument for the future is nuclear energy and it is a very persuasive one. In fact, it seems likely that this is the direction in which the future of energy is taking due to the support of the scientific community. Supporters of nuclear power point out, “one pound of uranium contains the energy of roughly one million pounds of coal (Lorenzini)”, therefore the devastation that takes place during the mining process will be reduced to almost nothing by today’s standard. This is a great way to start the argument for nuclear considering the images of strip mining and thousands of oil rigs on and offshore. Not to mention incidents like the Exxon Valdez and the last years’ events in the Gulf of Mexico. Next it is pointed out that “airborne releases from nuclear power plants are insignificant. (Lorenzini)” That sounds great after decades of mass pollution. But what about the dangers of the reactor cores being exposed to air and the radiation that takes following, such as what happened in Chernobyl and more recently in Japan? The response is, that to achieve the amount of deaths related to coal-burning emissions would take “roughly the equivalent of one Chernobyl incident every two or three years. (Lorenzini)”

The ball drops when discussion of waste products from nuclear power begins. The EPA requires storage of such waste products for ten thousand years. Ten thousand years. The waste cannot be buried in the ground either. There is no solution to that problem and it is already a growing concern because of the existing accumulation. The next problem is when the bomb drops, and hopefully not in the literal sense. How do we protect uranium supplies spread across the nation, or worse on a global level? There are real life Dr. Evil’s, hiding in caves, like bin Laden, spending day

Get Your Essay

Cite this page

Sustainable Energy Sources And Nuclear Energy. (October 3, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/sustainable-energy-sources-and-nuclear-energy-essay/

Search for Free Essay On Any Topic
Search database
search Please enter something
Save time on writing
Hire a pro to write you an essay!
Get Your Essay