Countries have different availabilities of types of energy and in order to reach its energy requirements a country needs to use an energy mix to meet its energy needs. An energy mix could be composed of fossil fuels such as coal oil and gas renewable resources such as hydro geothermal and solar or even nuclear energy. In Japans energy mix in 2013 only 1% was nuclear energy however a plan has been set so that by 2030 20% to 22% of japans nuclear mix would be nuclear energy (World-nuclear-news.org, 2015). In Korea’s energy mix from 2014 13% of Korea’s energy mix is nuclear energy and Korea also has a goal to increase its nuclear power usage by 2035 to go up to 29% (Eia.gov, 2015). This means that Korea and Japan both want to increase the …show more content…
As well as this it could also be said that nuclear power plant cost more to run as when they’ve expired they have to be renewed which also costs a lot of money. I believe that Japan and Korea should use nuclear energy as they energy mix as nuclear energy has become more safe and stable and there are increased amounts of checks. It is unfair to put more of a strain on certain countries for not having their own source of energy therefore nuclear energy should be used as part of the energy mix with the consent of the citizens in both countries.
Nuclear energy has been a big part in Japan & Korea’s energy mix as it enables both countries to become more independent with their source of energy as they no longer have to rely on imported energy such as oil from other countries. By using nuclear energy Japan and Korea have a constant supply of energy for the country so they no longer have to think about the risks such as an energy shortage or increased amount in importing different sources of energy. This means that through the use of nuclear energy or higher amounts of nuclear energy usage Japan and Korea will have a more sufficient supply of energy to use within their country. (Min and Chung, 2013 p.1)
Nuclear energy would benefit Japans
Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has
Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.
As the worlds population continues to grow, the energy demand will also increase posing an important question as to how will we keep up with the demand, and which source of energy will be the most efficient and be a better source for human sustainability. Fuel for nuclear energy is abundant and is derived from the fission of uranium and plutonium. It meets the definition of sustainable by being able to provide energy for long time periods without depriving future generations; it releases very little greenhouse gases, is less expensive, and is a reliable form of
One of the key issues with fossil fuels is the fact that they are non-renewable. Humans consume fossil fuels at a faster rate than it is produced. With humans consuming more and more fossil fuels as more countries develop and increase their energy needs, the need for renewables like nuclear energy becomes greater. One of the large
cAs the population is increasing quickly, the source is a significant issue that human kinds have to face on. One of the most important source is the energy resources. People need the energy to generate the electricity and operate the machinery. Without energy resources, the society would return back as primitive time. Some people claim that people should use the nuclear power as the main resource, others assert that people should choose other types of powers, like solar energy, natural gas and oil. However, people should rely on nuclear power, because it has positive affection on environment and help to solve some environmental problems.
Nuclear power is a much greener option than others, and can help prevent the devastating effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Burning fossil fuels releases thousands of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) into the air that cause a variety of serious environmental problems. The emissions cause global warming which leads to the melting of polar ice caps and the raising of oceans. This also causes acid rain and air pollution which pollutes water sources, accelerates erosion and damages ecosystems (Pacific
Nuclear power provided 11 percent of the world 's electricity production in 2014. In 2016, 13 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity.
William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William
Lewis Munford, an analyst, once wrote, "Too much energy is as fatal as too little, hence the regulation of energy input and output not its unlimited expansion, is in fact one of the main laws of life." This is true when dealing with nuclear power. Because our societies structure and processes both depend upon energy, man is searching for the most efficient and cheapest form of energy that can be used on a long term basis. And because we equate power with growth, the more energy that a country uses, -the greater their expected economic
Nuclear Energy has many supporters around the world. The benefit of Nuclear Energy are clear to many. People who are for Nuclear Energy, support it for many reasons. The outcome of produced power can be changed, all you do is change the fuel entering the chain reactor (Page 11). One main factor that puts nuclear energy on top is it lets out little air pollutants, greenhouse gases, smog, slows global warming, and helps limit acid rain (Sally
The energy crises existed in most countries makes us think of new energy sources as nuclear energy.
Fossil fuels are criticized for contributing to the “global warming” theory, and the “greenhouse effect” blamed on unregulated industry, and transference pollution in our atmosphere. While energy preservation and education are important, it doesn’t solve the long-term problem: energy is needed and is increasing in demand as technology and our way of life advances. It is not possible to install a solar panel on every house, or a windmill on every hill. Fueling the future is a growing challenge for the world. At the current rate of consumption, fossil fuels will soon run out. Nuclear energy is clearly one of the best answers to our energy problems. Nuclear power system produce a tremendous amount of energy for their mass and are very safe when
As each year passes, more and more electricity will be made as a result of increased nuclear power plants around the world. The economic benefits of nuclear energy are equally advantageous as the environmental aspects.
The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.
Well, we are here at the end of our journey, which it helped us to learn a lot more about nuclear energy and some the drawbacks that comes with it. We also learned about the tragic event that happened in Japan’s catastrophe the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. “What is going on with the Japanese nuclear reactors is, without question, a terrible event that can possibly add more hardship onto an already unspeakable tragedy. The explosions and the threat of a radiation leak are troubling, and Japanese engineers and scientists are doing everything humanly possible to contain the situation. (Turk & Bensel, 2011)