The ever-growing popularization of the environmental agenda made the energy concerns of the United States a necessary centerpiece of the political platforms of all parties competing for the recent power shift.
Though this year's struggle for election is over, the energy debate is only beginning. Both major candidates for the position of president of the United States made energy independence a prime concern.
While energy independence is of utmost importance, fulfilling that goal with new sources of fossil fuels is only a temporary solution. With energy use growing vastly each year, primary emphasis must be on the implementation of alternative energy sources, particularly renewable fuel sources. At the top of the alternative fuel agenda are nuclear, solar and wind power, each with its own advantages and shortcomings.
Nuclear power involves the use of controlled nuclear reactions to extract energy from atomic nuclei. Unlike wind and solar power, nuclear power is as nonrenewable as coal or petroleum, but unlike these fossil fuels, it does not create greenhouse gas emissions. Today, around 15 percent of the world's electricity and 6 percent of the world's energy is generated from nuclear power.
The United States, France and Japan are the world's largest producers, accounting for almost 57 percent of the world's nuclear power use. Controversy concerning nuclear power arises over the question of the high-level and low-level radioactive waste created during the nuclear production process, and that which is left over after use.
Spent fuel rods are highly radioactive and potentially very dangerous to any form of life. In the United States, great debate has centered on how and where to store spent fuel rods, so as to be least threatening. Several countries including France and Russia reprocess their spent fuel rods to produce a mixed oxide fuel. A total of 95 percent of the uranium and plutonium in the waste rods may be recovered, and reprocessing reduces the volume of nuclear waste by 90 percent, thus greatly reducing the amount of radioactive byproduct.
Solar energy refers to the redirection of solar radiation into usable forms of energy and power and is broadly categorized into either passive or active energy. Passive technology involves using sunlight for energy without the use of mechanical systems. Passive techniques convert sunlight into useable forms of heat, cause air movement or store heat with minimal use of external energy sources.
Leave a comment 9 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
So basically you're saying, "I don't know which alternative fuel is better, but we must do something!" Paige, you don't know which is the best fuel source, and neither does the government. Which is better solar or wind power? Which one should we invest in so that is has the lowest enviromental inpact with the greatest energy returns? Or would it be better to invest in nucelar power so that we could create hydrogen on a large scale? Should we go to hydrogen cars or straight to electric? What kind of batteries should we use in these cars? Should all homes be required to be fitted with peltier junctions? You don't know the answer to any of these questions. So calling for action when you don't know which is the right action is foolish. If you really want to promote alternative energy, then advocate for the government to stay out of it. Gas will eventually run out and companies will compete with their alternative energy plans. The most effective ones will win.
Reply to this Top
I think Paige did a good job of outlining the three major renewable energy sources under consideration. Solar and wind are great concepts, but implementation is a bit of an issue. Wind is a great source of energy in some regions, but many regions do not have the wind patterns to make this a consistent source of energy. Solar energy is also a nice idea, but is again subject to the weather. An electric utility in the state studied solar power a while back. They tracked the weather every day for TEN YEARS, and found that Virginia has more cloudy days than sunny days. The solar arrays couldn't produce enough power to drive the motors that rotate the panels towards the sun. From personal experience I can tell you the nuclear industry is one of the safest and most regulated industries in the world. Nuclear is the one option that is available 24/7/365, which is a necessity to meet the energy demands of our society.
Reply to this Top
I think that a couple of corrections are in order. First of all, the idea that "nuclear power is as nonrenewable as coal or petroleum" is patently false. If you're wondering why, I refer you to a detailed article that expounds on the subject: ( http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx ). Secondly, it's not technically correct that the use of nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases. While nuclear reactors do not directly produce greenhouse gases, the process of harvesting the uranium they use as fuel does.
Reply to this Top
This is largely to William Squalus. Promotion of blanket policy that will invest in alternative energy to increase competition NOW will do far more to securing our energy later. We don't need to know what will work best if we incentivise all of them by the same magnitude. We do know that they are better than traditional fossil fuels, so we can manipulate the market to move in a particular direction now, rather than waiting for the whole industry to melt down before any real change occurs.
Reply to this Top
Jayton Gill- Thank you for pointing out that "nuclear power is as nonrenewable as coal or petroleum" is in fact not true. The sentence I actually submitted to the editor reads, "Unlike wind and solar power, nuclear power is nonrenewable like coal or petroleum" which simply informed that nuclear power is considered a nonrenewable energy source. The wording above alters the meaning of the sentence, which is always frustrating to the writer.
Reply to this Top
I think you have over looked a very important alternative fuel source. The oil from algae farming in only a small portion of the country can completely replace the use of petrolium in this country with in ten years. Why don't you guys look it up on line.
Reply to this Top
We should go the nuclear power (reprocessing) route since there's no way solar and wind will cover our energy needs. Widespread production of solar panels (so they get cheap) for use in new and old homes...sure. The problem with any leftover nuclear waste is where to store it. The proposed storage facility in Yucca mountains, Nevada has been hopelessly blocked. If we can't store it there...then nowhere is safe or acceptable in the US.
Reply to this Top
"Promotion of blanket policy that will invest in alternative energy to increase competition NOW will do far more to securing our energy later.".................................... Anytime the government gets involved it stifles innovation. If you need an example take a look at the ethanol fiasco. Let individual companies find the solutions and do the research. The government invents and innovates nothing- they can only slow down progress.
Reply to this Top
And if you want to go further back, look at the synfuel fiasco.
Reply to this Top