Please research Thorium Nuclear power plants. It’s more abundant than Uranium. Provides more energy, while not creating Plutonium used for nuclear weapons. The nuclear waste decays 10x faster than conventional uranium power plants. And some have speculated that we can use old nuclear waste to power these new plants.
I wanted to get that out of the way first. Please reconsider all of your pre conceived notions on this subject. We can create a brighter future for our children with new energy technologies.
The lack of new nuclear power plants being built is heart breaking to me. I believe we could invest heavily into this field. Creating jobs, providing stable grid infrastructure, reducing our carbon foot print, reducing our price of energy. And best of all, be an energy independent country and economy! The sky is the limit.
hey how do we merge all the groups about molten salt reactor!!! Shipping/Energy taxes and costs U.S. Energy and Manufacturing Policy: Energy as the Backbone of Economic Growth. Read this if you want the cost of living to go down - #2 by brybry800 Shipping/Energy taxes and costs
I did a couple research papers about nuclear energy and our decline as world leaders in nuclear power. Nuclear energy is safe, reliable with zero emissions, waste can be significantly reduced and stored safely. It is an excellent means of rapidly reducing energy costs and it will allow us to grow our national power grid very quickly.
I also looked into renewable energy. There is no way it makes sense to focus on implementing renewable energy at this time. We need to focus on natural gas, fossil fuels, and nuclear until renewable energy becomes a viable alternative.
I want to attach documents, but I’m only given the choice of hyperlinks. I copy pasted them instead.
The article rhetorically analyzed is titled The US Shouldn’t Abandon the Nuclear Energy Market, authored by Travis Carless. The link to the article is in the reference page. This journal article discusses the importance of the United States remaining engaged in the nuclear energy market. The primary audience is United States policy makers in the energy sector. The secondary audience is any other interested parties. Mr. Carless argues informatively and persuasively that the United States has ceased to make significant progress in the innovation and use of nuclear energy. Therefore, weakening the United States’ oversight of nuclear materials, energy, safety, and non-proliferation across the globe. The journal is effective in presenting the potential consequences of the United States reduced use and innovation in nuclear energy.
Mr. Carless highlights the massive withdrawal the United States has made from the nuclear energy market. “Between 1969 and 1990, 41% of the nuclear power reactors operating in the global nuclear fleet had been supplied by US-based vendors. Between 1991 and 2017, that number dropped to 8%.” (Carless, 2020) This massive reduction in reactors operated by the United States has permitted China and Russia to become the primary suppliers and innovators of nuclear energy around the world. Russia and China are building nuclear power plants in multiple countries. They have made their reactors affordable by financing 70 to 90% of the construction costs. However, these reactors relinquish significant control over the country to China and Russia. This control is exercised by enforcing or changing the repayment of debt, not operating the nuclear reactor, or not transporting nuclear waste off-site. The reactors security and safety procedures are not allowed to be observed or reviewed by the international nuclear community. Whereas, when the United States sold a nuclear reactor to a foreign country the reactor was considered property of that country and they were required to be frequently observed and inspected by the international nuclear community.
The journal article is formatted professionally for reading in a scientific and political journal. The style is fact based and direct. There is no extraneous description. The evidence displayed in this journal is a table from the international atomic energy agency. No other references are listed.
The article appeals primarily to pathos with a foundation in logos and ethos. For example, Carless, 2020 states: “Emerging markets’ reliance on Russia and China for low-barrier, quick pathways to nuclear power can create several nuclear proliferation, safety, and strategic risks.” Carless is sounding the alarm. He is trying to warn the United States and the world of a potential crisis perpetrated by mismanagement of the global nuclear energy market.
The communication strategies employed in this journal are effective. The author possesses the required credentials, validating his analysis of the nuclear energy market. While much of this article is speculative, it is based on a logical if this, then that argument. Carless transfers a desire to the reader to contact every politician and request the United States immediately resume investment and innovation in nuclear technology.
References
Carless, T. (2020). The US Shouldn’t Abandon the Nuclear Energy Market. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(2), 19-22. Log In - Embry-Riddle Sign-On proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/scholarly-journals/us-shouldnt-abandon- nuclear-energy-market/docview/2452119589/se-2?accountid=27203
Abstract
Renewable energy is not capable of providing enough power to take over as the primary energy production source in the United States. Assuming that climate change is real and is an existential threat, it is something we most confront. However, using renewable energy as the means of significantly reducing the United States’ carbon footprint is incredibly ineffective. It is also incapable of keeping up with the increased annual demand of energy production. Effectively reducing carbon emissions requires a balanced perspective from both political parties in the development and implementation of a feasible strategy that reduces the use of fossil fuels. This reduction in fossil fuels must be accompanied with an increase in the use of nuclear energy until such time that renewable energy is a more viable and reliable alternative.
Is it time for Renewable Energy?
Renewable energy is capable and ready to take over as the United States’ primary source of energy. This is one of the biggest lies of the decade. The world currently runs primarily on fossil fuels and petroleum products. Coal or natural gas is used as a heating source to turn water into steam which turns turbines that generate electricity. This has been an amazingly effective and reliable means of generating power for United States citizens. Lu et al., (2020) in a 2018 study, the United States produced 81% of its total energy from fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels have been a reliable source of power. However, in the past 30 years, concerns have grown regarding the associated pollution that results from burning fossil fuels and petroleum products. Studies have shown that the byproducts of burning fossil fuels, mainly carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons, are harmful to the environment. A new term, carbon footprint was created to measure these carbon type emissions from power plants and private, public, and commercial transportation methods. These concerns regarding carbon emissions when attached with the idea of climate change have led to the call for a new form of primary energy in the United States and in other well-developed nations.
Renewable energy is the proposed solution to carbon emission pollution. Renewable energy is considered energy that does not require the continual use of fossil fuels. It is considered renewable because the source of the energy is supplied and recycled by nature. The primary examples of renewable energy are wind, solar, biomass, and hydro. Wind energy is generated using windmills. Solar energy collects energy from the sun via solar panels. Biomass is generated by burning trees and other natural mass. Hydro utilizes turbines in river dams, ocean currents, and tides. Renewable energy is supposed to reduce pollution by reducing or eliminating harmful carbon emissions once operational.
There is another source of energy other than fossil fuels or renewables. This energy source falls into its own category. This source is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy works by utilizing fission. Fission is the natural release of radiated particles to generate heat which transforms water into steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. The downside to nuclear energy is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for hundreds to thousands of years and can be harmful, even fatal to humans. However, it truly generates zero carbon emissions once that plant is built and operational.
President Joe Biden and other members of his party believe that if carbon emissions are not immediately and drastically reduced our planet will eventually fail to support human life.
Due to the additional greenhouse gases emitted by humans – such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons – more heat than normal is being trapped, contributing to an overall rise in global temperature. […] If the temperature surpasses 1.5℃, the existential threat to life will not be limited to just ecological systems, but will extend to human life as well. (Biden Harris, 2020).
Biden Harris, (2020) and their political party’s energy plan proposes to ensure a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050. This will be accomplished by aggressive regulation on methane pollution and existing oil and gas operations, government vehicles will be electric, all new vehicles in the light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electric and heavy-duty vehicles will be required to make annual improvements on emissions reductions. Farmers will start growing more biofuels. Nuclear power will be looked at again and potentially used. Airplanes will have to find new alternative fuels that generate less carbon emissions. There will be a second great railroad revolution for high-speed trains for freight and passenger travel across the country. Oddly, his campaign website does not mention increasing the use of solar, wind, biomass, or hydro renewable energy. Maybe this is an assumed topic. Bryce, (2020) this plan allegedly costs only two trillion dollars.
Lem et al., (2020) analyzes the energy strategy 2050 plan adopted by Switzerland in 2017. “The strategy contains measures and binding benchmarks for increasing energy efficiency and expanding the use of renewables, as well as the phasing out of nuclear power” (Lem et. al, 2020). The conclusion of their analysis demonstrated that the current Swiss energy strategy 2050 will not work. The yearly national increase in energy demand and the available area of land that can be effectively used for renewable energy will not provide enough energy to retain energy independence. “At best, 74% of the energy demand could be met by renewables” (Lem et. al, 2020).
Critics will say this is not a fair comparison. The United States is not Switzerland. The United States has more land mass that would be available for renewable energy sources. The United States has not decided to eliminate nuclear energy. However, the United States has a similar problem with the increase in national energy demand. Biden’s plan calls for a massive increase in the use of electric vehicles. In fact, gas powered cars are to be a thing of the past. Biden’s new energy plan suggests that gas-powered light- and medium- duty vehicles will be illegal to produce. The increase in national energy use and production would increase exponentially just to accommodate the primary use and charging of electric vehicles alone.
Responding to the growth in electric vehicles will present unique challenges for each state. A team of researchers from the University of Texas at Austin estimated the amount of electricity that would be required if every car on the road transitioned to electric. Wyoming, for instance, would need to nudge up its electricity production only 17%, while Maine would have to produce 55% more. (Brown, 2020).
(Lem et al., 2020)
The above graph paints a clear picture. Renewable energy is on the rise, but it is terribly slow. Meanwhile, overall energy consumption and requirements in the United States continue to rise. The only effective means of meeting that increase in need has been increasing the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Renewable energy’s rise is largely contributed to federal subsidies that reward states for putting up windmills or solar panels, but overall, their energy contribution is negligible at 8% on the national scale. See the below graph regarding recent U.S. energy subsidies by type of energy.
(Earth Institute, 2019)
Renewable energy is not capable of closing the gap between energy produced and energy consumed. If the United States wishes to reduce their carbon footprint and maintain energy independence, they must increase the use of nuclear energy and continue using fossil fuels until renewable energy sources can provide the efficiency and reliability of fossil fuel power. It is not the time to switch primary energy sources to renewable energy. The United States is in recovery from an economic recession and a pandemic. Now is the time for United States politicians to look at the facts, come together, and create an energy plan that reduces carbon emissions but does not severely burden its citizens, economy, or national security.
References
Biden Harris Campaign. (2020). The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/
Brown, A. (2020, January 9). Electric Cars Will Challenge State Power Grids. PEW. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids
Bryce, R. (2020, July 14). Joe Biden’s $2 Trillion Energy Plan Ignores Cost, Land-Use Conflicts. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/07/14/joe-bidens-2-trillion-energy-plan-ignores-cost-land-use-conflicts/?sh=34e4d1b94336
Earth Institute. (2019, September 23). You Asked: How Much Does the U.S. Subsidize Renewable Energy Versus Fossil Fuels? You Asked: How Much Does the U.S. Subsidize Renewable Energy Versus Fossil Fuels? – State of the Planet
Lemm, R., Haymoz, R., Gurung, A. B., Burg, V., Strebel, T., & Thees, O. (2020). Replacing Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power with Renewable Energy: Utopia or Valid Option? A Swiss Case Study of Bioenergy. Energies, 13(8), 2051. Replacing Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power with Renewable Energy: Utopia or Valid Option? A Swiss Case Study of Bioenergy
Lu, Y., Khan, Z. A., Alvarez-Alvarado, M., Zhang, Y., Huang, Z., & Imran, M. (2020). A Critical Review of Sustainable Energy Policies for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources. Sustainability, 12(12), 5078. A Critical Review of Sustainable Energy Policies for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources
To many stove pipe. It’s been proven remove all the stove pipe down to one cost goes down and performance goes up.