Energy Arguments; Nuclear Vs. Coal

As we continue to hurdle along into our future the need for a sustainable and clean energy becomes more and more of a pressing matter

. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments of global warming, it is easy to see that the emissions from our cars, or power plants and our factories is having an effect on our environment that would have otherwise not been there some fifty even sixty years ago. So what is the answer to this energy dilemma? Should the United States continue the use of coal power even though it has come under so much criticism? Or should we move to nuclear energy, even in light of some of the disasters that have befell Fukushima and the areas surrounding it.

To begin with, lets take a look at the nuclear side of the argument. For one, the sheer amount of power that is able to be produced through such means far outweighs any other energy source. With renewable energies like solar and wind taking about seven percent of the pie, 43% comes from coal, and nuclear only accounting for 19%. Proponents of nuclear energy would of course like to see this number grow. Interestingly enough, the United States accounts for 30% of the worlds nuclear energy, making it one of the leading producers on the globe. Unlike coal power plants, nuclear plants produce no harmful gases into the air, but unlike coal plants, storing and taking care of the waste associated with this form of energy can be quite the problem.

By products of nuclear power plants produce what is referred to as radioisotopes, which remain radio-active anywhere from a few days to more years than you thought would be possible to count to. However, when stored correctly, these waste products give no real harm to human or animal life forms.

The other side of the argument sees the use of coal energies. Many advocates of this form of energy like to cite the recent improvements in the capturing of these CO2 gases, thus making the emissions not as harmful as they have been previously. These improvements, often with difficult to pronounce names like, gasification combined cycles and membrane separation have been shown to cut down on these emissions as well as turn the CO2 into a product that can be used in other areas of manufacturing and production. Many say these technological advancements have not been made simply due to the lack of funding for research. With an increased push towards innovation, coal could continue to be the king of the energy sources amongst its peers.

So coal or nuclear, each comes with a slew of costs for both production, storage, employment and operation. Which source offers the least expenses? On the most basic level, both of the plants have about the same operating costs. Coal plants have a bit of a higher fuel costs where nuclear plants have much higher upkeep costs. With nuclear power being so prone to large scale catastrophes and coal being harped on for its less than ideal emissions, what side of the fence do you sit on?

by: Max Stanford

POST COMMENT

Far East Newest Energy Petroleum Ingestion Overtax Strategy May Well Approving If You Want To Getting Out Of Debt In The New Year Patios Add A New Dimension To Your Home Purchasing A Hot Tub For Your New Home This Guide Provides Xerxes Newbies Every Little Factor Wants A New Beginning The New Fuss About Puerto Galera Diving Ugg Women Boots Give You A New Lease On Life New Wholesale New Era Hats Is Twice The Enjoyable Gps Navigation Maps: Explore The New Destinations Starting A New Internet Business? Here Are Some Options Overseas Education Await You: Study In New Zealand! Nuclear Energy Power Plants Optimality Of Ruby On Rails Most For New And Seasoned Developers