Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Summary of Findings
Climate change has become an issue of national importance. National and global temperatures
have been increasing drastically in the last several decades and the rate at which they rise is
accelerating. Because energy is so vital to a healthy economy, any national policy changes must
be made considering both the national economy as well as climate change. Adopting a wind and
solar centered policy would be too much of a shock to the national economy. Nuclear energy,
while economically viable, still has risks associated with possible plant failures-which could have
catastrophic consequences from radioactive fallout. The most realistic course of action to
combat climate change would be to favor natural gas over other fossil fuels, while continuing to
focus on the eventual large-scale implementation of nuclear energy and possibly other clean
energy sources.
3
Table of Contents
Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………….page 2
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….page 4
Coal…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………page 6
Oil………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….page 7
Natural Gas………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………….page 8
The Future of US Energy: Nuclear Energy and a Note On Clean Energy ……………………………….…………page 10
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………page 12
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………….page 15
4
Introduction
In today’s world, the economic success of a country is based on its ability to organize its
production of goods around efficiency and quality, so that it may participate in mutually
beneficial trade and establish itself as an economic hub for investors; then ideally it can grow
bigger and more powerful. A country can become a keystone in the international economy by
specializing in food produce, technology, defense, or a variety of other things. However, for
In need of vital energy, countries turn to the most cost-efficient mode of production:
fossil fuels. Deposited in immense quantities across the world, known fossil fuel stocks are
expected to last us well into the twenty-first century. The economic explosion that has propelled
industrial growth for the past two centuries was built on the desperate seizing of fossil fuel-rich
areas by both private corporations and nation states alike, with the need to remain competitive
In the last couple of decades, however, the need for a new approach to energy has
become apparent. As the world’s energy consumption has increased, the atmosphere’s ability to
offset the effects of the pollution released as a result has been exhausted. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency1 has recorded a temperature increase of 0.29 to 0.46ᵒF every
decade since 1979 in each of the 48 contiguous US states. Now scientists from across the world
are calling upon governments to act before this global crisis worsens.
In the future, it will be vital that the United States replaces fossil fuel energy with cleaner
types of energy like solar, wind, or nuclear power, but there is still no plan for this transition.
5
Before this can be done, a national consensus will have to be reached on the direction of U.S.
energy requirements. Unfortunately, the state of modern politics has delayed action on this
issue, and a comprehensive plan remains an uncertainty. Because of this disparity between the
actions the scientific community is demanding and the actions that legislators are willing to take,
a middle ground must be found. Any plan to eventually adopt clean energy will have to be
implemented over a period such that short-term interests of companies and legislators are not
completely ignored, and future needs of the country and world are still met.
The changes that have occurred in global temperatures are the result of gas particles
being released into the atmosphere, the majority of which come from the burning of fossil fuels
to produce energy. Different kinds of greenhouse gases have different effects on climate change.
The two factors that account for these differences are resident times and radiative forcing.
researcher Daniel Lashof describes a particles’ resident time as the amount of time it can be
expected to stay in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed into the earth through natural
processes (2). A greenhouse gas particle only poses a threat in terms of climate change for as
long as it is in the atmosphere, where it can trap energy radiating from the sun and prevent it
from radiating back out into space, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The process of
keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere is known as radiative forcing (2). Lashof highlights
CO2 as a particularly dangerous greenhouse gas, this is because unlike other greenhouse gasses,
6
CO2 does not get destroyed by natural environmental processes. Even if a CO2 particle has left
the atmosphere, it can still reenter in the future and cause further damage (2).
Many reasons for our continued dependence on fossil fuels exist: the infrastructure to
mine such resources is already in place, energy operates as a keystone in national economies
and efforts to change how energy is obtained may negatively impact a country’s economy,
energy companies wield enormous influence and operate with stakeholder’s interests in mind,
etc. All factors must be considered to decide on the best path in terms of national policy.
Coal
Coal likely poses the most danger of any fossil fuel in terms of climate change; its burning
releases high amounts of CO2 gas into the atmosphere resulting in strong radiative forcing. This
factor makes coal one of the most threatening greenhouse gases. Coal also serves as an energy
staple in the US, where approximately 25% of the world’s known coal reserves are located. “Our
Energy Sources” 3 by The National Academies notes that in 2015, energy from fossil fuels
accounted for a total of 81% of national energy consumption. Coal, the cheapest fossil fuel per
energy content, accounted for about 16% of total national energy in 2015, with nearly all of it
Despite coal making up a relatively small proportion of our total energy consumption,
contributing less to our annual energy consumption than either oil or natural gases, it is a
7
difficult resource to phase out. This is because coal energy accounts for 33.2% of US electricity-
more than nuclear, renewable clean energy, or any other fossil fuel (3). If the US were to try and
quickly phase out coal as an energy resource, a plan would have to be in place to ensure
Further complicating things, many local US economies are fully dependent on the
continued extraction and use of coal. It is common for local economies that were built on coal to
fall apart if the industry leaves the area. The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics4 notes that of March
2019, the coal industry employs 52.7 thousand people as miners. These people often support
single-income households on their working-class salaries and are among the most susceptible
demographic to static unemployment (4). Any plan to adopt cleaner energy will have to take the
well-being of those whose industries are being replaced into serious consideration, along with
Oil
The U.S. Energy Information Administration5 describes crude oil existing as a mixture of
hydrocarbons in underground deposits can be extracted and refined into petroleum products
such as fuel grade oil (5)(6). As pointed out in “The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum” 7 by
James Speight, refining crude oil into petroleum fuel products is a relatively new process, with
many of the key advancements being made in the 20th century. Speight goes on to note that as
the industry ages, new milestones will be reached that will keep oil as an enticing energy source
in terms of cost.
8
Despite being a relatively new energy resource, due to its abundance and high energy
content, oil has become the world’s most common source of energy (7). Compared to coal, oil
releases relatively little CO2 into our atmosphere and is a cleaner source of energy in terms of
climate change. However, this difference is far from enough to make oil a viable energy option
This is a cause for concern, as current projections suggest national oil consumption will increase
Oil is the most common source of energy nationally and is already responsible for 36% of
national energy consumption (3), so any plan to replace coal energy with petroleum energy
would still result in the release of dangerous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
Natural Gas
Natural gas refers to gaseous fossil fuel trapped in underground rock formations like
shale. In Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal8, University of Illinois Professor Katherine Hayhoe
states that the primary method for natural gas extraction is fracking, which implements hydraulic
pressure to break apart rock. The invention of fracking has allowed for many previously
inaccessible deposits of natural gas to be mined. However, fracking is relatively new, and Hayhoe
emphasizes that many questions remain unanswered regarding its effects on surrounding areas.
There are concerns that the process can damage water supplies, crops, or cause earthquakes-
more time will be needed to collect enough data to know the exact effects of fracking.
9
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the effects of fracking, natural gas is a decidedly
cleaner energy source than either coal or oil. The viability of natural gas as an effective source of
energy is also tried and proven; energy from natural gas is already responsible for 29% of our
The Following Charts Compare Coal and Greenhouse Gas in terms of efficiency and emissions
This chart plots out the differences in greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas processing and coal
processing. (From “Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal: Climatic Effects of Utility Sector Emissions” 9).
10
The number of people in the oil and gas pipeline construction industry as of February
2019 was 185.7 thousand (4). As of the same date, the number of people in the mining and oil
and gas field machinery industry was 78.1 thousand (4). The number of people in these
industries makes it appear that a change in either may lead to massive unemployment. However,
the natural gas and crude oil industries hold many similarities, with advancements in one often
leading to advancements in the other because of the similarities in methods associated with
each (5). Because of this, if one industry were to be favored over the other in the future, it
wouldn’t be as hard for workers to adjust. This ability to adapt between industries gives those in
the oil and gas industries a distinct advantage in being able to find employment compared to
Nuclear energy has been a topic of controversy since its conception. While other
methods of producing energy result in the release of harmful greenhouse gases, nuclear fission
produces nuclear waste. Because of this, nuclear energy holds more potential than any other
The main concerns towards nuclear energy are the stability of the reactors and the
management of the nuclear waste that results from the nuclear fission process. The problem
with the stability of a nuclear reactor is that if an accident occurs, nuclear fission is not a process
that can simply be stopped. In their paper “Organizational Processes and Nuclear Power Plant
Safety” 9, Berkeley Professors Rick Jacobs and Sonja Haber describe the nuclear industry as a
11
“process driven” industry, meaning that once the process has begun there it is too late to stop it
and it must go to completion. This is in direct contrast to most other energy plants, which are
manufacturing in nature, meaning they can be stopped should it be needed (9). This is standard
for industries that deal with large amounts of stored energy. Because of this, in a potentially
catastrophic event like an earthquake, a nuclear reactor may become damaged and release
Such catastrophic instances have happened before and are largely responsible for the
hesitation governments have with increasing their utilization of nuclear energy. “Nuclear Energy
in the Post Fukushima Era” 10 by Zeng Ming describes the worldwide response to the Fukushima
reactor meltdown in 2011 as a temporary halt in advancement and a long-term halt in the
lerge scale in the near-future. In the wake of the Fukushima incident both Japan and Germany
proposed to turn away from nuclear energy, setting a precedent that nuclear is not a viable
energy option (10). Since then, the state of nuclear energy worldwide has largely remained
stagnant. Nuclear energy is currently responsible for 9.5% of the US energy supply (3), with no
great shifts in nuclear power production expected for the next twenty years (5).
Ultimately, to implement a plan that shifts national requirements towards nuclear energy
would likely be too difficult because of the concerns surrounding nuclear energy. Perhaps
nuclear energy will be perfected in the coming decades and widely held beliefs towards them
will change. Until then, nuclear energy use will have to remain largely consolidated.
On the topic of alternative clean energy, wind and solar energy exist as a comparatively
expensive alternatives to other energy sources. Wind and solar will continue to grow and
improve in capability, but these things will take time. Because the issue of climate change needs
to be addressed swiftly, it is best that national policy focuses on other options while still
encouraging the further research, development, and implementation of alternative clean energy.
Conclusion
Considering all aspects of the issue of climate change prevention, national policy should
implement the gradual replacement of coal and oil energy with that of natural gas in the
immediate future and a shift towards nuclear energy in the distant future.
Three main factors lead to this conclusion: impact on climate, impact on American jobs,
decided that steps must be taken to move national energy dependence away from the top
polluters (coal and oil) and towards cleaner options (natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)
Unfortunately, switching away from coal will leave many Americans unemployed, and measures
would have to be taken to ensure these peoples and communities are not neglected. The switch
13
away from oil should not be as difficult, since the oil and gas industries are similar and those in
Thus, a plan implementing the replacement of other fossil fuels with natural gas to scale
back greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate future and the eventual replacement of natural
gas dependency with nuclear energy and possibly other clean energies is the best route for the
US.
This plan should aim to phase out coal entirely within the next thirty years, in accordance
with how long the U.S. can realistically make such a dramatic shift. This should leave enough
time for cleaner sources of energy to phase in before global climates begin to have a runaway
affect and methods of particle-removal would have to be used. During the national transition
from coal energy to natural gas energy, resources will have to be put into place to avoid a large-
scale wave of unemployment resulting from the shrinking of the coal industry. If each coal miner
were to receive 25,000 dollars annually in different forms of support for 5 years once they leave
the industry, then it can be expected that the total cost of relief for this effort would be 6.6
billion dollars. If the shift from coal to natural gas were to happen at a constant rate during the
thirty-year transition period, then the annual cost to the federal government would be 220
million dollars.
After Coal has been replaced by natural gas, a massive increase in our dependence on
emissions-free energy needs to begin. Nuclear energy is the most viable option for this, and
thirty years is expected to be enough time10 for fears of nuclear energy to largely fade and for
14
many of the dangers of nuclear energy to be mitigated to where nuclear energy is a popular
•Halfway through the transition, 3.3 billion will have been spent on
supporting ex-coal miners
•By this point, improving the future capablitities of clean energy
2035 sources should be emphasized by national policy
•By this year, coal energy should be completely removed from our
nations energy budget
•At this point, the main objective is to transition away from fossil fuels
2050 entirely and towards cleaner energy, primarily nuclear.
15
Works Cited
(1) US EPA, OA. “Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature.” Reports and Assessments.
US EPA, June 24, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-
indicators-us-and-global-temperature.
(2) Lashof, Daniel A., and Dilip R. Ahuja. “Relative Contributions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to
Global Warming.” Nature 344, no. 6266 (April 1990): 529–31.
https://doi.org/10.1038/344529a0.
(3) “Our Energy Sources — The National Academies.” Accessed April 24, 2019.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/.
(4) “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Accessed April 22, 2019. https://www.bls.gov/home.htm.
(5) “U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” Accessed April 25, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/.
(6) Tissot, B. P., and D. H. Welte. Petroleum Formation and Occurrence. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.
(7) Speight, James G. The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum. CRC Press, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b16559.
(8) Hayhoe, Katharine, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Atul K. Jain, and Donald J. Wuebbles. “Substitution of
Natural Gas for Coal: Climatic Effects of Utility Sector Emissions.” Climatic Change 54, no.
1 (July 1, 2002): 107–39. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015737505552.
(9) Jacobs, Rick, and Sonja Haber. “Organizational Processes and Nuclear Power Plant Safety.”
Reliability Engineering & System Safety 45, no. 1–2 (January 1994): 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90078-7.
(10) Ming, Zeng, Liu Yingxin, Ouyang Shaojie, Shi Hui, and Li Chunxue. “Nuclear Energy in the Post-
Fukushima Era: Research on the Developments of the Chinese and Worldwide Nuclear
Power Industries.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (May 1, 2016): 147–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.165.
(11) “Massive Transport of Nuclear Waste Crossing the Ocean from Fukushima.” Nuclear-News (blog),
September 4, 2014. https://nuclear-news.net/2014/09/04/massive-transport-of-nuclear-waste-
crossing-the-ocean-from-fukushima/.