Task prompt:“After researching informational texts related to E3 curriculum, E3 program resources, field experiences, labs, and the E3 Policy Summit on society's energy and the environment, write a White Paper (Public Policy Paper) that argues your position on one specific recommendation to shape more efficient, effective, and sustainable energy/environmental policy on a local, state, national, or global level. Support your position with evidence from your research. Be sure to acknowledge competing views. Give examples from past/current events or issues to illustrate and clarify your position.”

One of the largest problems plaguing the 21st century is developing sustainable energy

sources that do not contribute to the rising CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. For over 100 years,

coal has been a major source of power in the United States, but due to increasing concerns over

what coal emissions are doing to the Earth’s climate on a long term scale, many scientists are

looking into more clean energy alternatives. Many of these alternative energy sources are also

renewable, such as wind, solar, and hydropower. The problem with these energy sources though

is that not only are they extremely expensive to build, but they do not produce nearly the energy

society needs to function in the way that it has been used to. Luckily, there is an alternative

energy source that could not only compete with coal, but could solve our energy crisis even with

a rising population: nuclear energy. While America has somewhat shied away from developing

nuclear plants, it is imperative to the survival of our country that more money is put into nuclear

energy if America wants to solve both the depleting levels of fossil fuels and the environmentally

unfriendly aspect of fossil fuels.

While the concept of using nuclear energy is not new, many Americans have a negative

perception of nuclear plants largely due to the environmental concerns of how to dispose of

radioactive waste. Besides for just this problem, many plants are outdated, and ununiformed in

design, which has greatly contributed to the problems with nuclear energy in America. With

increased funding, and public support of developing nuclear plants into more technologically

efficient energy sources, America could change the ballgame so to speak on energy.

One crucial development that was banned in America in 1977 was the implementation of

nuclear waste reprocessing facilities (Shah, 2011). At the time, Americans viewed these facilities

to be a threat to national security and not feasible economically. What the common citizen did

not realize was that nearly 97% of nuclear waste is recyclable, leaving only 3% as highly

hazardous waste (2011). Currently, the French have adopted such methods that have drastically

reduced the waste that is produced. That means that America could not only be producing more

energy from waste, but getting rid of most of the waste that is feared the most.

Changing the way Americans think about nuclear energy is not out of the realm of

possibilities. Currently, the French are 76% reliable on nuclear energy, and nearly two thirds of

the population is in support of nuclear energy (Palfreman). Another step the French have taken in

the development of nuclear energy is changing the way waste is dealt with. Unlike America, the

French no longer dispose of waste permanently, but store it in labs with accessible shelving units

(Palfreman). The idea behind this philosophy is that scientists in the future will still have access

to the waste if a solution is discovered, as well as farmers do not have to worry about digging

into nuclear waste. This philosophy is quite different than what Americans currently use to

dispose of waste in places such as Yucca Mountain for example. If America were to adopt either

method of dealing with waste related issues, more citizens would change their perceptions on the

industry in general. The first step needs to be reiterating the recycling of waste into our nuclear

facilities though, because in order to fix the problem of harmful waste build up, this process is a

must.

If Americans choose to adopt a more proactive stance on nuclear energy, there are many

benefits that can be achieved. The first, and probably the most prominent benefit of nuclear

energy as a whole is the lack of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, emitted into the atmosphere.

According to Dave Celebrezze, an employee of the Ohio Agricultural Council, “Even though

nuclear energy produces no CO2 emissions directly from the plant, many of the trucks used to

create the plants run on diesel, which emits a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.” While

Mr. Celebrezze does present a valid claim, the amount of CO2 emitted on average of nuclear

plants is only around 400 grams per KW hour, while the average emission from coal plants is

nearly 700 grams per KW hour ("Everything you want," 2013). Surprisingly enough, the amount

of CO2 emitted from the Vattenfall nuclear plant in Sweden was actually less than renewable,

clean, energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower (2013). So in terms of CO2

emissions, nuclear plants not only could offer all citizens with an equally better atmosphere, but

fewer emissions than any other energy source available. Another huge benefit to using nuclear

energy is the large amount of energy that can be produced. Take for example, one kilogram of

uranium can produce more energy than 200 barrels of oil ("Nuclear power: The," 2009). That is

quite a bit more energy, which would save Americans much needed dollars.

Besides for cutting back on CO2 emissions, nuclear plants are economically beneficial to

society. The cost of nuclear plants can be broken into four main categories including

construction cost, operating cost, waste disposal, and decommissioning costs. If a power plant is

expected to operate for around 40 years, the amount of energy required to construct and

decommission a plant would take only 1.5 months to repay, waste disposal costs could be paid

back in around 1.5 months, and the non-nuclear energy investments put into a plant could be paid

back in around 5 months. This is less than 0.8% of all electricity produced by the plant itself

("Everything you want," 2013). While nuclear plants cost more money upfront for construction

costs, in the long run, nuclear energy is actually relatively cheaper than most alternative energy

sources.

If Americans succeed in increasing funding to nuclear energy development and waste

management development, several political and societal actors will be affected by the change.

One of the biggest political agents affected by the change will be the Democratic Party. Lately

Democrats have heavily focused on increasing funding towards renewable energy resources such

as wind and solar energy. If more funding was given to nuclear power, this group would have to

adjust its thinking on how to go about solving the energy crisis. While many might be opposed to

the idea initially, in order to continue the momentum for nuclear development, Democratic

congressmen will have to stop creating barriers for further development. Another political agent

that would be affected by this change would be the news media. Like many Democrats, the news

media has often times sided with the “green energy” initiative. In order to make nuclear energy

more accepted, there would need to be a change in the attitude of coverage on nuclear energy

related issues. This would better suit the American people for the change.

Besides for political agents being affected, it is important to consider societal agents

affected by the change. The biggest obstacle nuclear energy will have to overcome will be the

coal industry. Right now coal is one of the leading providers for electricity throughout the U.S.

With increased funding going to nuclear energy, the coal industry is likely to speak out against

losing jobs in the industry. If our country was to switch away from coal, this would mean that

many of these Americans would be forced to switch companies away from coal. Another big

societal agent that would be affected by increased nuclear funding would be American citizens.

While many might be swayed to consider more nuclear power plants, not many people would be

keen on having a nuclear plant built in their backyard. The key is to change the perception of

nuclear plants, so that more people know the benefits that ultimately outweigh the costs.

Overall, increased nuclear energy funding and waste management development will help

lead our country to a more sustainable energy future. Not only is nuclear energy cleaner than

most other energy sources, but can produce the amount of energy needed to continue living the

way Americans want to live. Unlike with most alternative renewable energy sources, nuclear

energy can provide Americans with the security they need without having to cut back to do so.

While not every group will agree with pursuing nuclear energy to gain independence, if America

wants to be able to compete with the rest of the world, energies that require huge subsidies to

even be used are not the direction our country should focus its attention on. Economically,

nuclear energy is cheaper in the long run, and will provide Americans with many jobs that

people need. In order to make this initiative work, Americans need to make this issue a top

priority.

Works Cited

Everything you want to know about nuclear power. (2013). Retrieved from

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower

Nuclear power: The power of the future. (2009, July 5). Retrieved from

scienceray.com/technology/applied-science/nuclear-power-the-power-of-the-

future/

Palfreman, J. Why the french like nuclear energy . PBS: Frontline . Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

Shah, A. (2011, April 13). Nuclear waste recycling – why the usa does not do it and france,japan

do,utility and problems with nuclear reprocessing. Retrieved from

http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/04/13/nuclear-waste-recycling-why-the-usa-

does-not-do-it-and-francejapan-doutility-and-problems-with-nuclear-reprocessing/