What they say about Nuclear Energy

     Past blogs I have posted have been about how great nuclear power is and its benefits, but now it is time to see what other people have to say about nuclear power. Mr. Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth" does not believe nuclear energy is what the United States needs to climb out of the energy crisis we are facing. In an article he wrote on "commondreams.com" titled, "Nuclear Energy: Still a Bad Idea," he contends that "nuclear power plants are 50% more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants."  Rifkin is arguing that our country is already in a bad economic state and that building new nuclear power plants we will go deeper into debt.  However, what Rifkin fails to acknowledge is the amount of energy that nuclear energy can produce compared to coal.  Studies have shown that about one gram of uranium is equal to about one ton of coal; the amount of money of one gram of uranium compared to one ton of coal would save the United States thousands of dollars to save.  So yes, creating new nuclear power plants would be expensive, but in the long run, less money would be spent on obtaining uranium than obtaining coal.
     Rifkin also questions how nuclear waste and spent nuclear rods could safely be disposed of.  "60 years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world."  Rifkin believes that even after all this time and research that today's scientists do not know how to safely dispose nuclear waste or what to do with the nuclear rods, since the half-life of uranium is such a long time.  Again, Rifkin does not realize that Congress actually passed a bill that allows nuclear plants to reuse nuclear rods and recycle uranium to be used again for power.  This in turn would allow for less nuclear waste to be produced and less nuclear rods to be "piling up," and only pumping out more energy for the country.
     One thing that Rifkin does support is the need for cleaner energy in this country.  "...we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass."  These forms of energy are all reusable resources of energy and pump out clean and efficient energy that powers the homes of Americans and also keeps our environment clean.  Although these means of energy help the environment and bring energy, Rifkin does not look into the reliability of these energy forms.  Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are all variable forms of energy, i.e., that they can change at any given moment.  Some days it is cloudy (less solar energy), days can be less windy than others (less wind energy), and flows of rivers are changing from fast to slow (less or more hydro).  These forms of energy can help the energy crisis, but they cannot but cannot be primary forms of energy, the energy for people would be too unreliable.  Rifkin also talks about how much these plants would cost for nuclear power.  The amount of turbines, solar panels, or windmills needed to create enough energy to supply the entire country would have to cost money and that is a very large amount of money. 
     Nuclear energy, although it does have some problems, is reliable, clean, and safe for the environment and the people who use it.  It allows for constant energy flow at an inexpensive rate and has become safer than ever.  People need to realize that nuclear power can and will help the United States out of this energy crisis and have surpluses of energy for generations to come.

Washington Post-Why Nuclear Energy Can Save the Environment

     Patrick Moore, author of the article below, helped found Greenpeace in the 1970s.  In the article, Mr. Moore begins to talk about how he was skeptical of nuclear energy due to "all the bad that can come from it."  He then states how nuclear energy can save the environment and is a controllable natural and reusable resource.  Yes, this article was written in 2006, but the point he is making here is that nuclear energy is not all about the bad myths that people are always concerned with.  For example:  Moore states the argument that nuclear energy is not safe.  He then goes into talking about how nuclear energy is a lot more safe than coal and how the two nuclear power plant disasters were not all that they were cracked up to be.  He states that coal mining attributes for about 5000 deaths every year and that all nuclear radiation deaths from mining uranium is a problem that has been long solved.  Moore states that Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen because the plant was a failure from the start and that "its operators literally blew it up."  He also makes the point that there are other means of fuel (car bombs that use diesel oil) to blow up and kill people.  Moore says that if people were to ban all means of  energy used to kill people "we would not have harnessed fire."  Moore makes the argument that nuclear energy does have its downsides, but its positives greatly outweigh the negatives and is a use of energy that all "responsible environmentalists should support a move in that (nuclear energy) direction."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209_2.html

Why I am interested in Nuclear Energy

I am a declared ISAT major, and one of the fields of interest I have been looking into is alternative forms of energy.  Let's be honest, this country and the world are in an energy crisis.  As the population goes up, the pollution caused by fossil fuels will go up along with the price of energy production.  I have been interested in wanting a new form of energy and that is why I am interested in nuclear energy.  I believe that nuclear energy is a safe and affordable form of energy that would help satisfy future energy needs and help bring down pollutants.  For those of you who do not know how nuclear fission works (the process by which nuclear energy is created), it basically has to do with taking a stray neutron being absorbed by Uranium 235, thereby creating unstable Uranium 236.  U236 will then split creating two new compounds (such as Krypton 92 and Beryllium 142) which then release two more neutrons.  As U236 splits, energy is created in the form of heat.  This heat would be used to boil water, which creates steam which would then power turbines, creating electricity.  The products from the nuclear energy is pure electricity and produces no green house gases.  This is why I am interested in nuclear energy and am spreading the word.  I believe it is, again, safe, affordable, and much better than any other form of energy and would like to get to know more about it.  I believe that everyone should be informed about nuclear energy in order for it to become a more widely used form of energy.

About Me

Hello, I am Dave DiPascale.  I am originally from Cinnaminson, New Jersey, which is about ten minutes outside of Philadelphia.  For those of you who do not know, Cinnaminson is in South Jersey and South Jersey is very different from the "North Jersey Jersey Shore" hype that MTV likes to show (sorry North Jersey).  In high school I was in the concert band, played four years of football, and was on the mock trial team.  I consider myself pretty outgoing and like to meet new people.  When I am not studying I like to watch "Family Guy" or if it is Sunday I'll watch whatever game is on TV.  I also like to watch the History Channel (I really do like history as much as I say) and also love the shows "True Blood" and "Entourage" (I'm really hoping JMU allows for us to get HBO so I'm not behind next season).  That is all there really is about me, so I'll just leave anyone who reads this with this video (it really has nothing to do with who I am).