Why Uranium is the New Green
Introduction
This paper present the overall view of the article by William Sweet, titled “Why Uranium is the New Green". Generating electricity with nuclear reactors is cost effective and environmental friendly compared to coal dependent generators. Sweet in the article evaluates the issues of large carbon emission associated with the U.S dependence on coal. Higher percentage of its electricity is from coal and there is slow change to the nuclear generators as a better option even though a certain amount of electricity is being generated by those nuclear reactors.
The technology for a cleaner source of electricity has been there for several years but addiction to coal sources makes it difficult to change to better source in terms of pollution and cost effectiveness. The negative side of carbon emission linked with respiratory cause of premature death in large number of the populace. ‘Cleaner coal’ which is advancement in terms of emission management is still yet utilized making the whole process the same. Sweet suggest an average period of 20 years for the ‘cleaner coal’ technology to be effectively utilized. The technology in wind mills or nuclear reactors is well understood making it more manageable in terms of associated risks.
The fact that accident rarely occurs in United States' reactors is a plus and has been considered to be a form of design technique and regulatory practices being enforced to monitor the reactors. The regulatory structures were considered by Sweet has an important aspect that has greatly improved.
Advanced method of waste storage and management was considered by Sweet has an important technological tool with less issues and problems when compared with that of the quantities of carbon being emitted from coal systems. The comparison of the waste that are usually emitted were said to be 2,000 tons for radioactive waste. The 2, billion tons was that which relates to carbon emission. The difference among the two is just the fact that radioactive materials are still more toxic. There is a need for change towards a more advanced and beneficial electricity source even though there might have been some form of benefits associated with the coal generators.
Increasing rate at which newer countries get involved in building atomic seems to be another major limitation for the U.S government to change totally to nuclear platform. Monitoring the rate and other plans with the use of nuclear materials questions the actual need for nuclear alternatives globally. Although the perception might not be completely genuine, however, there are higher percentages supporting it. The case of Iran threats against is a major example making it necessary for an enforcement of international regulation against acts like that.
Alternatives like wind sources provide conservative means of electricity generation. This is easier to handle compared to others however limited in the amount of power it could generate. The only solution this could add to the fight against carbon emission of coal generators is to plan building at least one major wind generator per annum. The contribution of this is a long term added advantage simply because it could help increase generation by 1 gigawatt per annum.
The whole idea of these actions and fight for greener sources of energy is to actually help replace the obsolete sources of power generation with newer and advanced sources which can be effectively manage and has a less risk of environmental issues because of the technology and understanding that guides its use. Leadership plays a very important role in those actions.
Work Cited
Durante, Diane. 2005. Nuclear Power: How it works and why it's better than other fuels. Forgotten Delights.
