The financial crisis is today having a significant impact on all economic activity sectors, including the demand and supply of energy. As a result, people still debate whether to start using nuclear energy or any other form of energy, such as electricity. However, it is imperative to understand that nuclear power is among the controversial topics ever since its first research testing during the early 20th century. It is a form of energy that has been utilized for the procedures of life-saving in addition to the horrifying destruction of human life alike. Nuclear power is also the energy for binding together the subatomic particles against the magnetic forces ( Vainio, Paloniemi & Varho, 2017) . Therefore, this report analyzes whether nuclear energy is the option for better climatic and environmental conditions as compared to other non-renewable and renewable sources of energy.
Examination of Nuclear Energy Relative to other Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Sources
Nuclear energy can be said to have minimal impact on the climate, unlike renewable energy sources, such as fuel-fired power plants. It is because there are no direct emissions of carbon dioxide or air pollution by the nuclear power plant reactors. However, the process used to mine and refine uranium ore in addition to making reactor fuel all need high energy amounts ( Lima, Nunes, Cunha & Lucena, 2016). Nuclear energy is also associated with large amounts of concrete and metal, which requires large energy amounts for it to be manufactured. On the other hand, using fossil fuels for mining and refining uranium ore or even for producing nuclear energy my increase the extent of emissions. As a result, the high emissions resulting from burning such fuels may adversely affect the environment, and ultimately the climate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, unlike other renewable and non-renewable energy sources, nuclear energy may adversely impact the environment as a result of creating radioactive wastes, including used reactor fuel, uranium mill tailings, as well as other radioactive wastes. Nowotny et al (2016) argue that these radioactive waste materials can remain dangerous and radioactive to the environment and human health for centuries. Importantly, these radioactive wastes are often subjected to exceptional regulations governing their handling, storage, transportation, as well as disposal for protecting the environment and human health. A notable example is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responsible for regulating the operations of nuclear power plants. It is trivial to understand that the extent of energy produced by non-renewable and renewable sources of energy has not yet proven to be the best viable solution for meeting the wide-scale energy needs of the American population.
Social Factors Enabling or Limiting the Adoption of Nuclear Energy
The adoption of nuclear energy can be enabled or limited as a result of various social factors. For instance, the cross-nationally different perceptions of nuclear power may restrict or facilitate nuclear energy adoption. Factors such as numerous accidents and events associated with nuclear energy in other countries have a temporary or consistent impact on the attitude of people towards adopting nuclear power ( Petti, Buongiorno, Corradini & Parsons, 2018). In this case, the perceptions of these accidents may make it impossible for other countries to adopt nuclear energy as they fear that similar accidents and events may occur again.
On the other hand, positive perceptions as a result of heightened concern in climate change have resulted in nuclear energy being employed and considered as among the significant sources of alternative energy in many nations. With this positive social factor perception, Sarlós (2015) observes that most national governments are aiming to expansively invest in numerous programs for the operation, management, in addition to the R & D of national electricity production.
From a personal perspective, I think that positive or negative feelings towards nuclear energy accurately reflect on the associated benefits and risks. For instance, both national and regional national benefits with risk perceptions and trust are significantly related to the public acceptance of nuclear energy. Such reflections can be demonstrated through the use of multi-dimensional psychoanalysis on these perceived benefits. The resulting outcome often indicates that perceived individual benefits are associated with a moderate effect on nuclear energy acceptance in different countries. On the other hand, negative feelings towards nuclear energy also significantly reflect on the associated underlying risks ( Vainio, Paloniemi & Varho, 2017). For instance, negative attitudes towards nuclear facilities and technologies may reflect on the fact that they can be vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
Commenting on the Future Nuclear Energy
From a personal point of view, today’s nuclear energy is responsible for providing more than one-third of the globe’s low-carbon electricity. For nuclear power to continue playing its future role within a sustainable supply of global energy, both institutional and technical innovations are required. It implies that there is a promising future for nuclear power as the world would significantly require an increased supply of energy, particularly the cleanly generated electricity ( Lima, Nunes, Cunha & Lucena, 2016). Thus, it is nuclear energy that would be responsible for providing over 10% of the globe’s power in addition to 18% of electricity within the OECD countries.
Specific technological innovations would also assist in increasing the viability of nuclear energy in the future. Petti, Buongiorno, Corradini and Parsons (2018) argue that the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) would help in sponsoring research, development, and deployment (RD & D) activities through its various concepts. They are such as Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC), Advanced Small Modular Reactor (ASMR), in addition to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) technological programs. As a result, they would significantly assist in promoting safety, economic, technical, and the environmental advancements of the innovative Generation IV technologies of nuclear energy.
However, it is also worthwhile to pursue other sources of energy rather than nuclear power alone. For instance, increasing the rate of supplying renewable energy would significantly allow in replacing the sources of carbon-intensive energy and drastically reducing global warming emissions within the United States. For instance, Sarlós (2015) believes that about 25 percent of national renewable electricity standard by the years 2025 would help in lowering the CO2 emissions from power plants, thereby reducing the effect of global warming as a climatic aspect.
Conclusion
Nuclear energy is considered as one of the controversial debates within the United States concerning whether or not it’s the best energy option to use. Nuclear power is often associated with less impact on the climate and the environment since it does not have direct emissions of both air pollution and carbon dioxide. However, nuclear energy can also negatively affect the environment by creating radioactive wastes, which can be poisonous and dangerous to the environment and human beings. It is also worth noting that various positive and negative social factors may influence or limit nuclear energy adoption by other countries. Importantly, nuclear energy tends to have a brighter future as various technological advancements, including Advanced Reactor Technologies, would promote the future improvements of nuclear technology.
References
Lima, F., Nunes, M. L., Cunha, J., & Lucena, A. F. (2016). A cross-country assessment of energy-related CO2 emissions: An extended Kaya Index Decomposition Approach. Energy , 115 , 1361-1374.
Nowotny, J., Hoshino, T., Dodson, J., Atanacio, A. J., Ionescu, M., Peterson, V., ... & Veziroglu, T. N. (2016). Towards sustainable energy. Generation of hydrogen fuel using nuclear energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , 41 (30), 12812-12825.
Petti, D., Buongiorno, P. J., Corradini, M., & Parsons, J. (2018). The future of nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative (MITEI).
Sarlós, G. (2015). Risk perception and political alienism: Political discourse on the future of nuclear energy in Hungary. Central European Journal of Communication , 8 (14), 93-111.
Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., & Varho, V. (2017). Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. Risk Analysis , 37 (3), 557-569.
