Garrison Hurd

Caruso
UWRT 1103
Nov. 18, 2015
Is Nuclear Energy the way away from fossil fuels?

The consumption of fossil fuels for energy can only last so much longer
at the rate in which we use energy. Over 190 nations understand and are
making an effort to find new, reliable, clean, and efficient energy sources to
replace fossil fuels and reduce the carbon released into the air (PLOS para.
1). The idea that seems to keep coming to everyones mind is nuclear
energy, but there are many skepticisms about it from environmentalist
concerning past meltdowns like the ones in the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S.,
UK, Switzerland, Canada, and France. And most notably the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 and the Chernobyl disaster in the
Soviet Union (Wikipedia sec. 7). These events come to peoples mind
immediately whenever the idea of nuclear energy is mentioned. And that is
what I decided to do my product on, which was a political cartoon. The public
just think of the big past events of nuclear meltdowns because thats what
the media talk about and focus on rather than actual facts. The public think
that nuclear power plants are unstable and cause fallout around them but
this is just not true. Nuclear power is one of the only safe and clean form of
energy that can replace fossil fuels right now because it is the only

renewable energy source that can equal the amount of energy output.
However, many nations have already implemented nuclear power plants as a
major source of energy, including the U.S. So why havent we (the global
community) already converted to clean, nuclear energy in place of fossil
fuels? The people still dont trust it, but with new technology and the
examples other nations like Sweden and France are setting, the nuclear
energy front will expand as old skeptics are assured by new technology and
techniques (PLOS para. 1, 5-17, 21-31).
In 1972 Sweden was one of the first nations to use commercial nuclear
power plants. However, they didnt use it to reduce CO2 emissions at first. It
was first used to reduce the need to import oil and to save four major rivers
from the destructive installation of hydropower plants. But an unseen benefit
was that by 1986 it had cut the countrys CO2 emissions by roughly 75%
(PLOS para. 5). Sweden is a best case scenario in which the majority of their
power is made from clean and cheap nuclear power (compared to other
sources of energy), it should be noted that Sweden had some of the lowest
electricity prices in the world at the time (PLOS para. 7). These are the kind
of facts that the media should be focusing on, how these types of countries
are nearly oil free and have reduced their CO2 to a minimum. If the public
was aware of how successful Sweden has been with nuclear energy then I
am positive that they will be more on board. Especially with new technology
in generation III and IV power plants. To globally accomplish what Sweden
has already, the majority of nuclear power plants would have to be built in

countries that have an existing nuclear power plant model with regulations.
This works out well since those countries end up creating around 90% of CO2
emissions globally (PLOS para. 9).
We have the resources to start using nuclear power plants as a source
of energy to replace fossil fuels within the next twenty-five to thirty years
(Brook sec. 3.2). Countries now starting to adopt nuclear energy techniques
or advancing their own now can do it much more quickly than Sweden
because plans for power plants and advanced designs are readily available
on the international market. This is all the more reason for countries to begin
switching over to nuclear energy. Of course the deciding factor is the public
opinion but if the national governments show these facts on a nation-wide
basis to get the public on the side of nuclear energy. The technological
innovations we have created for nuclear energy have made it much more
safe and effective. Most nuclear power plants have a uranium core
(generation I-III) but the generation IV uses full fuel recycling based on
proliferation-resistant pyroprocessing which extends the life of uranium and
opens the door up to thorium. Thus reducing the annual mining needed to
run all if the necessary nuclear plants by 150 times and giving us enough
resources and energy for thousands of years (Brook sec. 3.2). This is the best
case scenario though. Obviously not all countries are going to be able to
afford or have the man power to run generation IV nuclear power plants so
as a global community we could help each other out and overlook monetary
funds for once to save our planet. This is somewhat seen in my product when

on the third frame you see the government placing a table over the oil drum
to protect the globe. This is hinting at the fact that the government is really
trying to protect the earth rather than just choose the quickest and easiest
way out.
Nuclear energy is the best option for a transition energy source but it
does of course have its drawbacks which include possible meltdowns,
nuclear waste disposal, and funding/accountability. Nobody wants to fund or
be accountable for a project that could end in disaster especially when the
public opinion is against it. The nuclear energy ball wont get rolling until the
public understands what it is and how it could help. The goal of nuclear
energy activists should be to inform the public about the benefits of nuclear
energy and how far we have come from the Three Island disaster and
Chernobyl incident. Instead of wasting time trying to get politicians on their
side they need to be getting the public on their side because once that
happens a funding plan and construction could start almost immediately. My
political cartoon is a way to show that, its probably not the best of them but
I think its one of the most effective. Political cartoons have been used since
the invention of the newspaper and have had major impacts on our country.
It helped gain support for the revolutionary war and has possibly caused
certain presidents or senators to win which changed the course of our
country. It is creative, simple, but yet it shows a lot of information in an
image that could change the course of energy sources for the better.

Bibliography
(New)
http://www.sciencedirect.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/science/article/pii/S0
921800908002620#
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
(Old)
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/06/fossil-fuels-renewable-energyresources/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/7/8/1221552/-GETTING-TO-ZEROIs-renewable-energy-economically-viable
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Advantages_FossilFuels.php
http://earthtechling.com/2010/12/is-nuclear-power-a-clean-energysource/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/08/can-world-economysurvive-without-fossil-fuels

Sources Cited (MLA)

(OLD)
Pickering, Keith. "GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy
Economically Viable?" GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy Economically
Viable? 8 July 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2015
"Advantages of Fossil Fuels - Conserve Energy Future."
ConserveEnergyFuture. 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2015
Defreitas, Susan. "Is Nuclear Power A Clean Energy Source? |
EarthTechling." EarthTechling. 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2015

Elliott, Larry. "Can the World Economy Survive without Fossil Fuels?"
Theguardian.com. 8 Apr. 2015. Web. 6 Oct. 2015
(New)
"Public Support for Reducing US Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Investigating
Household Willingness-to-pay for Energy Research and Development." Login
to Atkins Library - J. Murrey Atkins Library - UNC Charlotte. 15 Jan. 2009.
Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
"Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by
Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional
Deployment Data." PLOS ONE:. 13 May 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
"Nuclear Meltdown." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 19 Nov.
2015.