1.
Isaac Aland
Professor Celestino
Writing 0990 – 024 8:00 a.m.
September 27th , 2010
Assignment: Alternative Energy Essay
Nuclear Energy vs. Fossil Fuels
While fossil fuels have been labeled as a necessary evil when it comes to our energy
supply, together people have been trying to pick out the best alternative sources of energy to
replace the popular use of fossil fuels. While many different solutions have been presented, one
alternative that should strongly be considered is nuclear energy. But why? Why should we
practice nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels, which we are so used to? The answers can be
found by observing the cost, efficiency, and environmental effects for each source.
No matter what alternative energy source you look into, cost is an important factor to
consider. Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear energy, prices can be drastic. A single nuclear
power plant can cost 6 - $10 billion dollars to construct, and it doesn’t stop there. The price tag
for uranium, the most common element used in nuclear energy, can read from $42 - $60 dollars
per pound. Additionally, the security and containment costs established to protect the uranium
found within the plants are variable costs, but still a high expense. Lastly, there’s the cost to
refine uranium, which is the process of nuclear fission to get energy from uranium. What must be
understood about these costs is that they’re highly regulated and confidential by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in the United States, and by the Nuclear Atomic Commission, which
2.
part of the United Nations. Because costs are held private, there’s no exact, known figure for
refined uranium. However; recent studies and research tell us that refined uranium costs
approximately $600 dollars.
Now with an understanding of the costs for nuclear energy, let’s take a gander at the costs
of fossil fuels. Yes, billions of dollars for a nuclear plant is pricy, but don’t think for a second
that fossil fuels can’t match that. A single plant for fossil fuels can cost $800 million - $1 billion
dollars. Also remember the fact that there’s a lot more fossil fuel construction sites found than
nuclear power plants, so the prices for fossil fuel plants add up tremendously. As for the cost of
coal, the most common resource in fossil fuel plants, a pound can cost anywhere from $.38 $1.08 per pound. One good thing about fossil fuels is that there’s no procedure cost. All you have
to do is throw it in the fire and – viola! – You have energy. This all sounds pretty cheap, right?
That sounds way better than sixty dollars per pound of uranium, right?
Wrong. This leads me to my next component between fossil fuels and nuclear energy,
which is efficiency. Let’s start with a basic understanding that uranium isn’t a renewable
resource, and quite expensive as said before. However; you can get gain more energy for less
quantity. To explain, take a second to visualize in your mind a nuclear bomb. The large bomb is
dropped from the sky, and when it reaches the soil, it explodes, ignites a large mushroom cloud,
and it destroys miles and miles of land in all directions. With this image in your mind, imagine if
we harnessed that massive explosion and used it for energy. Wouldn’t that be amazing? Well,
let’s break this nuclear explosion down. In physics, the term “joule” is used to measure energy,
and if you completely refine 2.2 pounds of uranium, it can supply 80 trillion joules. That’s a lot
3.
of power. In short, small portions of uranium can supply us with grand amounts of energy that
lasts long periods of time, making it extremely reliable and efficient.
The efficiency of fossil fuels, on the other hand, not so much. Fossil fuels make up forty
five percent of our nation’s energy supply, and it seems the sole reason it’s been glorified is
because how easy it is to get and at low prices. But while the process of fossil fuels is
exceedingly cheaper than nuclear fission, you’re not necessarily getting more for your buck. The
reality is, in short, the sum of energy you can produce from large quantities of coal is almost
insignificant to the amount a small sample of uranium can. For example, as we discovered
before, 2.2 pounds of uranium can give us 80 trillion joules, or units of energy. In order for the
burning of coal to break even with that amount of energy we would have to burn 3,000 ton of
coal. Yes, you heard me right, that was 3,000 tons. With that being said, I think it’s safe to say
nuclear energy is clearly more efficient by a landslide.
While efficiency starts to form a line separating nuclear fission and fossil fuels, the
environmental effects between the two is where the fine line is drawn. Whether you believe in it
or not, global warming is a threatening issue that needs to be dealt with in the best possible way.
Luckily, something that can please environmentalists is nuclear energy releases little to
absolutely zero carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing little, if any, global warming threats.
A concern though in the matter is what to do with the nuclear waste made during nuclear fission.
One being exposed to too much nuclear waste can be dangerous and even life threatening. This
problem has been resolved by removing waste far from society where it can’t be hazardous to
civilians, and burying it into the earth where it can decompose and do least harm.
4.
Fossil fuels are a whole new ball game. The environmental impacts are everywhere. The
burning of fossil fuels is accused as the main candidate for global warming because it releases
heavy amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we humans, along with other
organisms breathe in the carbon dioxide, causing health hazards, and the coal ashes contaminate
our water. This heavy dose of pollution can even cause acid – rain! So unless you’re a fan of acid
– rain, or breathing in all that carbon dioxide, then I think nuclear energy is definitely the safer
route.
Overall, what must be understood in the reality of energy supply is that there’s no perfect
source. Where there’s a pro, there’s always a con. But what does nuclear energy have to offer
than fossil fuels? Well, let’s reflect back. The fact of the matter is whether you prefer nuclear
energy or fossil fuels, either expenditure will force you to empty your pockets for funding.
Granted, the price of coal and its use is much cheaper, but the real difference though, what
nuclear energy does offer over fossil fuels, is efficiency and less environmental effects. For
efficiency, the enormity of energy nuclear fission can supply over fossil fuels and at lower
quantities is a landslide. In regards to environmental effects, nuclear energy, if taken care of
properly, simply cannot be more hazardous to our environment than fossil fuels. In summary,
between the practice of nuclear energy and fossil fuels I strongly recommend the use of nuclear
energy for two reasons. First, simply because it’s evident that it’s the better choice, and secondly,
because personally the thought of acid – rain just doesn’t sound too pleasant to me.