Nuclear Energy as an Alternative to Fossil Fuels - Thesis Example

Nuclear Energy as an Alternative to Fossil Fuels Introduction Background statement Uranium industry is looking out for itself and no one can deny. Visibly, revival of nuclear industry would be a good thing for those who are involved in it. But it may not be very good for the environment or for any body else. Nuclear energy is thought to be more climate friendly than the fossil fuels. But a lot of issues are there converting from fossil fuels to uranium nuclear power which are unable to be resolved. It is not safe and durable than fossil fuels. It is like a replacement from one problem to another. Environmental scientists have the same opinion that for a strong civilization, environment cannot be focused to methodically rising absorption of matters pulling out from the Earth's crust. The purpose of the essay is to evaluate the feasibility of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation. Uranium becomes tremendously hazardous when we think it to create nuclear energy although it is diffused physically in the crust of the earth. Due to this reason environment and the people are being protected from these issues with due safety measures... Without any doubt fossil fuels have noteworthy harms linked with their utilization. Production of peak oil firstly will hit habitat. Growing demand of oil will make it harder to keep up with the needs and will definitely turn down. Great issues like pollution and carbon dioxide pumping in to the atmosphere are other forth coming issues of fossil fuels. Thesis statement Nuclear waste is an enormous issue for the environment, its production and processing give a challenge to the climate for years. It is not a competitive option for electricity generation than other power generating options. Identification of Problem While nuclear waste lasts longer, the volume generated is far less on a per unit electricity generation, compared with coal, oil, gas, and biomass. This makes nuclear waste more compact and more amenable to safe management and isolation from the ecosystem. Nuclear energy reserves are about to boost considerably as the price of using fossil fuels increases because of government strictness on emissions of carbon dioxide. And in the United States this is the special point of attention, as America acquires about 19 percent of power supply from nuclear energy but from fossil fuels it takes more than 70 percent. Reversing that should be our goal. On the other hand nuclear reactors produce electricity devoid of burning fossil fuels and so do not make carbon dioxide in a huge amount. Constructing and taking apart the services, as well as removal of uranium fuel. Currently nuclear power provisions are about 20% of UK electricity, but only 3.6% of energy needs. 4-8% of emissions will be more by replacing current reactors with coal and gas stations. (Rushe, 2010) Some services featured with regulatory delays however could choose to construct those power plants which are using coal or natural gas in its place to convene growing power requirement. And because of this many pollutants are causing ecological and fitness problems from smog, acid rain and global warming. Consumers will also get hurt, because electricity production from nuclear power costs more than coal and natural-gas. The use of fossil fuels is likely to become even costlier if the government, as expected, places controls on carbon dioxide emissions. (Steve, 2007) Expansion of nuclear power must goes on whereas lessening the dependence on fossil fuels to generate all the electricity for the power generation. Further non-hydro renewable sources like wind and solar energy can be supportive but are insufficient. They provide only a fraction of the power currently provided by nuclear power, which accounts for 11.4 percent of Massachusetts's electricity generation. (Steve, 2007) In 1989, for instance, the average cost of producing nuclear power (not including plant costs) stood at 2.95 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington, (Steve, 2007) D.C. Today, the average has dropped to 1.91 cents a kilowatt-hour, the group says. By comparison, coal-plant costs average 1.9 cents a kilowatt-hour and gas-plant costs average 2.8 cents a kilowatt-hour. (Rushe, 2010) Granted, these figures need to be taken with a grain of salt. Analysts look at nuclear power based on current operating costs. But if the cost of building new plants -- an unlikely scenario these days is factored in, nuclear power isn't nearly as competitive as some other forms of power. Some estimates that consider capital expenses put the cost of producing nuclear power at around 12.7 cents a kilowatt-hour, two to three times the cost of other forms of energy. (Datuk, 2008) But in either case, nuclear advocates say, the cost and environmental advantages mean that nuclear power will be both competitive and essential to meet pollution standards as state after state deregulates its power sector. How things have changed. After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the nuclear-energy industry was at its lowest point in history. (Steve, 2007) In response to safety concerns, regulators tightened operating rules, sending production costs soaring. Making matters worse for the industry, an ineffective public-relations campaign following Three Mile Island was drowned out by environmental protests throughout the 1980s. (Kathleen, 2004) Slowly, that all turned around. As the industry built a clean safety record, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees it, re-examined rules governing what had become the most scrutinized industry in the country. Meanwhile, the public uproar over nuclear safety subsided, and rising demand for nuclear power led the NRC to allow plants to slowly use more of their capacity, which made them more efficient and cost-effective to operate. Nuclear plants once again were viable producers of power. Today, 61 nuclear plants operate at 80% of capacity or better; in 1990 only 31 plants did. "It costs next to nothing to generate that extra 20% or 25%" of output. (Kathleen, 2004) The higher production comes as deregulation is opening up new opportunities throughout the power industry. Under strict government regulation of electricity markets, prices were set by regulators. No matter how a producer generated power, it had to deliver it to consumers at a set price. To raise rates, power companies had to petition state and local utility boards, many of which were opposed to rate increases. Conclusion Because building a nuclear power plant requires more capital than most other types of generating facilities, this put nuclear at a disadvantage relative to other types of power generation. Now that is changing. In order to open up power markets, government regulators have found they must compensate power generators and suppliers for the infrastructure they've built over the years, including plants. The willingness of state regulators in the name of deregulation -- to allow power companies to recover some of their fixed, or "stranded," costs through the rates they charge customers is expected to be a boon for nuclear power. References Datuk Dr R.S. McCoy. "Think twice about taking the nuclear route." New Straits Times. 30 Oct. 2008 Kathleen Hays, Louise Schiavone. "Nuclear Issues Debate Rages On, CNNfn." Narr. Street Sweep (CNNfn). 11 Nov. 2004 Steve Jordon Omaha, World-Herald, Neb.. "Utility weighs nuclear plant." McClatchy - Tribune Business News. 07 Dec. 2007 Rushe, Dominic. Dominic Rushe in New York. "The man behind the nuclear power shift." Sunday Times of London. 02 Dec. 2010 Read More