Nuclear power as a solution to global warming

Nuclear Power: An Important Response to Global Climate Change

Nuclear power is an electricity alternative that is an important response to the global climate change that is happening. Carbon (iv) oxide emissions induce changes in the atmosphere, interfering with (weakening) the ozone layer, resulting in an increase in the rate of solar radiations touching the Earth’s surface. Many power stations in the United States use coal, accounting for 36% of US emissions and more than 10% of global CO2 emissions. If the electric plants replace coal with nuclear power, the supply of electricity will still be high, and also the problem of carbon (iv) oxide emission in the atmosphere will relatively be lowered or extremely brought to a halt.

The Difference Between Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Bombs

For many decades, people have been made to believe that nuclear energy causes deaths due to ever-increasing production of nuclear bombs. Apparently, in this 21st century, many people have understood the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. The notion that nuclear energy kills people is slowly dying. Environment movements and agencies are on the forefront of educating these people that nuclear energy yes is used to manufacture nuclear bombs but it still has some positive impacts like the production of electricity. With this knowledge, we anticipate that the world will have a positive look where nuclear energy is concerned and be on the frontier of advocating for nuclear energy to minimize the destruction of the ozone layer.

The Use of Nuclear Power for Peace

When the Iranian announced the use of nuclear in their country, they stated it was for the sake of peace. This means that they had policies in place to control the use of the nuclear power to ensure that peace is maintained. The process was meant to dedicate nuclear to the production of electricity only and not to make weapons from it.

Nuclear Power: Putting it Under Control

Many people consider the nuclear power as harmful since it can be used to make nuclear weapons, but it cannot just be disregarded because of this. If the right people handle the nuclear power, it can be put under control. For instance, the Three Mile Island prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. Since the nuclear power was the correct hands, it did not cause death among the people who worked at the plant even though the reaction was crippled. The failure of the plant has scared away the USA government from the source of energy, but they should learn from the failures and approach its development from a different perspective.

Acceptance of Nuclear Energy

People have begun accepting nuclear energy and fought the fear they had about it. Twenty percent of the American electricity is quietly generated from 103 nuclear plants. Most of the people that stay around the plants together with the workers have approved the production. This shows that if people are educated about nuclear energy, they will learn to accept it.

Scientific Support for Nuclear Energy

Scientists such as James Lovelock believe that nuclear energy is the only way to deal with climate change. Also, Sterwart Brand believes that the environmental movement needs to embrace nuclear energy in order to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. This shows that scientists are in agreement that nuclear energy could play a significant role towards establishing a safer environment for humankind.

Acceptance of Nuclear Energy by Anti-Nuclear Campaigners

Also, there is a sign from the anti-nuclear campaigners showing that they are accepting the use of nuclear energy. From the Kyoto climate meeting, when the idea of nuclear energy being used as a replacement for other fossil fuels, there was no much resisting. Instead, the Greenpeace spokesperson seemed to agree with it and embraced the idea. This shows that in case the government decided to implement the idea, and it won’t face much resistance from the people like before.

Nuclear Energy: A Better Option to Replace Coal

Other energy sources such as wind and the sun cannot replace the coal in the production of electricity because they are unpredictable. Hydraulic plants are built pretty much to capacity, and natural gas is far much too expensive to replace coal hence plants cannot afford its price. This makes nuclear energy a better option to replace coal.

Nuclear Energy: A Cost-Effective Option

Nuclear energy is also one of the cheapest energy sources compared to coal and hydraulic. The United States can produce less than two cents per kilowatt-hour according to findings made in 2004. This means that in case the technology is advanced the production will be cheaper. This proves that nuclear energy is a better source of producing electricity despite the fact it is needed to lower the rate of global warming.

Dispelling Myths about Nuclear Energy

There is also the myth that nuclear plants are not safe. This is based on the accident that occurred at Chernobyl where the model of Soviet reactor blew it up. This resulted in the death of 56 people, which were because of radiation and burns suffered while fighting the fire. This was the first time death occurred in the US because of nuclear reaction. This caused many of the citizens to be afraid of the nuclear plants.

This is just a myth created because of the fear that exists in a large number of people. There are more deaths because of radiation from mines and other wars. This was just a mistake, and it does not mean that in every plant built there will be death. Hence, the people of United States need to know that nuclear reactions can be controlled and if done without mistakes, there are no risks of accidents occurring.

Waste Management and Recycling in Nuclear Energy

In addition, the waste from the nuclear may be recycled hence reducing the need for treatment and disposal. This is cheaper and put it to more use. This means that the myth about nuclear waste being dangerous for many years is a lie. The US government has made it easier by removing the ban on recycling used ban.

Comparing Nuclear Energy to Other Weapons

Many people look at nuclear as a dangerous weapon, and it is one of the major excuses used against nuclear energy. However, come to think about it, other weapons like machetes have killed a large number of people more than nuclear bombing has killed. This means that if policies are put in place to prevent the terrorist and other countries from using the nuclear energy for evil reasons.

Also apart from nuclear energy, more facilities are also vulnerable to terrorists such as natural gas plants and chemical plants. Therefore, nuclear being vulnerable to terrorists is not an excuse to ban the use of nuclear energy in the production of electricity and reduction of global warming.

The Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Energy

In conclusion, if we adopt nuclear energy, it will result in the reduction of global warming effect by a large extent. The already founded 103 nuclear plants effectively avoid the release of 700 tons of CO2 annually. This means that if the almost all of USA energy were derived from nuclear, more CO2 emission would be realized.

References

Mycle Schneider, Steve Thomas, Antony Froggatt, and Doug Koplow (August 2009). The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 Archived 2011-04-24 at the Wayback Machine. Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, and Reactor Safety

Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview Archived 2013-05-12 at the Wayback Machine., The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada