Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably to Nuclear Fuel Term Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 3705 words ( 12 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 2

Page 1 of 12

Business

Nuclear power, under current conditions, is characterized by much lower regular emissions compared to energy from fossil fuel burning. But, it poses its own unique hazards, of which the most notable is risk of industrial accidents (e.g. Chernobyl) that have acute, long-term repercussions over huge areas. There are also security risks presented by vast inventories of materials that have the potential of being utilized as nuclear weapons; fossil fuels pose no risk of this sort. Evidently, both fossil fuels and nuclear energy aren't, at present, favorable for sound security and environmental policy. Furthermore, neither renewables nor breeder reactors (the two alternatives for unlimited supply of energy) are cost-efficient at existing fuel rates for immediately becoming the base of worldwide supply of energy. What, then, are the alternatives available for an ecological, safe, and sustainable future energy supply? If one can reduce fossil fuel consumption and burn biomass renewably for lowering emissions to less than three gigatons carbon a year, fossil fuels can become a sounder energy form than nuclear power (Makhijani, 1997). Discontinuation of nuclear power is recommended, because it emits considerable lethal residue, and generation of electricity via fossil fuels adopted instead, since their emissions can be neutralized through scrubbers; moreover, waste reuse is possible, lowering annual operating costs.

Introduction

Electrical energy and its production are key elements of humanity's growth, QOL (quality of life) improvement, and enrichment of the standard of living. Electricity is necessary for the use of numerous items and common technological gadgets (like, TVs, computers, lights, air conditioners, etc.). With increase in living standards, one's electricity consumption also rises. Global consumption of electricity in the year 2007 amounted to 495 quadrillion British Thermal Units. By the year 2035, this is projected to rise to about 739 quadrillion British Thermal Units -- a near-50% rise in not even three decades. With a growing necessity for electricity, energy-generating technologies, such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear power, coal-fueled power, and geothermal plants, are greatly in demand. The need for novel power plants is quite imminent, but a very vital decision is identifying which technology is suitable to employ in this regard, as each technology comes with a host of advantages and shortcomings (Odell, 2011).

The sector for nuclear power endeavors to take advantage of the climatic crisis through aggressive promotion of nuclear technology; it positions nuclear power as a mode of electricity generation whose asset is "low-carbon emission." Advocates assert that nuclear power is economical, safe, and capable of meeting global energy demands. However, this is a false and highly misleading claim. Nuclear power, in reality, challenges the real climate change solutions by deflecting urgently-required funding away from energy efficiency, and renewable and clean energy sources. Indeed, nuclear power costs a lot, is harmful, and threatens worldwide security. Further, in fighting climate change, nuclear power fails to provide the requisite reductions in emission of greenhouse gases in time; nuclear power's contribution to decrease in emissions can be very late, insignificant, and costly (Greenpeace International, 2009).

Fossil Fuel

Electricity production using fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural gas, is a significant and increasing contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2) release; CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases majorly responsible for global warming. Scientists are all in agreement that a reduction in these emissions is a must; the U.S.A. is expected to eventually join other countries in an attempt to lower emissions (MIT, 2015). The Earth, apparently, has the ability to absorb three gigatons a year of CO2 emissions; however, there's no certainty of the precise absorption and tolerance levels. Currently, the world emits around nine gigatons, of which, approximately two-thirds arises from fossil fuel burning. Biomass burning constitutes the remaining emission. Apart from CO2 emissions, emission control technologies (for emissions excluding CO2 to the water and air) and mining of fossil fuels plays a role in environmental degradation (whose regional and domestic effects are normally quite serious). Moreover, current fossil fuel consumption techniques pose climate alteration risks, which scientists haven't been able to understand, as yet; however, they are likely to be permanent and calamitous. Natural gas, among all fossil fuels, generates the highest energy level for every carbon-emission unit. But it cannot be the sole source of fulfilling worldwide energy demands using existing technology, particularly if one takes into consideration the current unmet energy requirements of most of the global population. Also, molecule-for-molecule pipeline leakage of methane or natural gas is a much larger factor in global warming (though it isn't adequately understood) than CO2 (Makhijani, 1997).

Stuck Writing Your "Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably to Nuclear Fuel" Term Paper?

View All Our Example Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably to Nuclear Fuel Term Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written



Coal-fueled power plants produce electricity via coal combustion. These plants denote a distinct sub-category of the generic fossil-fuel power-generation plant category, which also comprises petroleum and natural gas plants. Coal-powered plants utilize steam for powering a turbine attached to the generator, which produces electric current via periodically-varying magnetic field by means of wire coils. The output of this step is subsequently conditioned and directed to an electric-power grid. Coal introduced into the system is burned, with emission of gaseous products from a chimney. A closed piping loop that contains water is boiled; steam at high pressure continually rotates the turbine. Steam from there is condensed, followed by being redirected across the boiler and reheated by the burning fossil fuel. The river constitutes the ultimate heat sink. In some cases, an alternative (cooling tower) condenses the steam that rotates the turbine. Coal mined for the process is regarded as "impure," with the impurities being sulfur, iron, aluminum, thorium, uranium, etc. In spite of being in an impure form, this coal is critical to energy generation's growth. Approximately 7000 separate coal-powered units are estimated to exist in 2300 locations across the globe (Odell, 2011).

Nuclear Fuel

Nuclear power in the year 2002 constituted 20% American and 17% global electricity consumption. Scientists have projected that global utilization of electricity will rise appreciably in the decades to come, particularly in developing economies, as an accompaniment to social and economic advancement. Official predictions, however, demand only a 5% rise in global capacity of nuclear power generation by the year 2020 (which is also questionable), whereas electricity consumption could increase by even 75%. These forecasts hardly involve any new nuclear power plant constructions; also, they reflect growing attitudes against nuclear power as well as economic considerations in key nations (MIT, 2015).

Nuclear power stations produce electricity by utilizing energy generated from uranium atoms whose nuclei undergo fission -- a process wherein a large nucleus splits or decays into several small nuclei. This fission reaction of uranium-235 (U235) into daughter products represents the key nuclear-reactor reaction. The raw material for the nuclear reactor - U235 --is naturally-found in small amounts. Pure ore of uranium typically comprises just 99.3% of U238 and just 0.7% of U235. For a sustained fission reaction in the requisite amount, the ore needs to initially undergo a process of enrichment for bringing U235 concentration to about 3 to 4%. UO2 or oxide of uranium is a nuclear station's actual fuel. Neutrons, in the core of the reactor, strike U235 atoms, forming U236, which is unstable, and thus has a transitory existence. It quickly breaks into several nuclei, releasing energy. The sum total of the rest of nuclei's masses isn't equal to U236's original mass; this mass difference converts into energy, as per Einstein's famous equation:

E=MC2

Here, E denotes energy produced (joules), c denotes velocity of light (3x108 meter/second), and m denotes mass (kilograms). Owing to light velocity's extremely great value, it is obvious that even minute mass values can produce substantial quantities of energy. Furthermore, fission reactions take place very rapidly, and thus, several such reactions taking place simultaneously can generate immense quantities of energy. The following example can help one understand the scale of reactions taking place in the core of a nuclear reactor: roughly a thousand nuclear fission reactions will generate 1 watt of electricity. A standard nuclear power station generates nearly 1000 megawatts of electricity, with around 1 x 1012 fission reactions a second in the core of the reactor. The fuel undergoing fission is consumed and has to be replenished. Once in 12 to 15 months or so, a nuclear power station experiences an outage for the purpose of refueling nearly a third of the reactor core's fuel; the outages generally last a few weeks to nearly one month. Some plants may even remain closed down for two or more months. Besides its fuel source, the technique of electricity generation in nuclear power stations is identical to that of coal-powered stations (Odell, 2011).

Fossil fuels are preferred over nuclear power in this paper because of the following shortcomings of the latter;

Costs

Nuclear power has commonly been defined as the costliest means to boiling water. In spite of its advocates' current assertions that the source is cheap, cost projections for proposed ventures have constantly proved incorrect. A glance at prior and present experiences of actual and estimated expenses of nuclear ventures uncovers a sector supported by.....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably To Nuclear Fuel" (2015, November 09) Retrieved June 26, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/fossil-fuel-preferably-nuclear-fuel-2156337

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably To Nuclear Fuel" 09 November 2015. Web.26 June. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/fossil-fuel-preferably-nuclear-fuel-2156337>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably To Nuclear Fuel", 09 November 2015, Accessed.26 June. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/fossil-fuel-preferably-nuclear-fuel-2156337
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example