Promoting Green Energy Practices 1 Pro.docx

Promoting Green Energy Practices 1
Promoting Green Energy Practices: Nuclear or Solar?
English 105

Promoting Green Energy Practices: Nuclear or Solar?
Introduction
There has been much debate recently, partly sparked by the
threat of human-caused
climate change, on how energy generation should be reformed
in order for a nation to become
more environmentally friendly. The two central technologies in
this debate are nuclear energy
and solar energy, although other green energy practices (ex.
wind, geothermal, etc.) are being

considered as supplements. In any system, multiple
technologies will have to be used, but the
question of which form should be emphasized remains largely
unanswered. If one form of
electricity generation appears to be better across multiple
criteria, it should have priority in the
development of a system to replace the coal-centered
infrastructure already in place. When
considering the criteria of efficiency and economic concerns,
nuclear energy generation appears
to have greater potential when compared to solar energy.
The Argument for Nuclear
Those who argue that nuclear energy should be emphasized
among green energy
technologies have the advantage that nuclear is already a well-
established form of energy
generation. The standard process of generating electricity from
radioactive materials is as
follows: the nuclear fission of uranium releases heat, turning
water into steam and driving
turbines that produce electricity (Nosowitz, 2011). As one
might notice, the process is similar to
that which generates electricity by burning coal, but at no point
in nuclear energy generation are

copious greenhouse gasses released into the environment.
This is the chief claim made by nuclear advocates in terms of
environmental concerns. In
a study published by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, it was found that the level of
carbon dioxide emitted by nuclear generation was comparable to
that of many renewable energy
technologies (Life Cycle, 2013). Furthermore, nuclear
advocates claim that, despite concerns
about nuclear energy’s safety, the nuclear waste produced by
this technology is relatively easy to
handle (Afgan, 2013, p. 306). According to the World Nuclear
Association, the waste materials
produced by the nuclear process “are neither particularly
hazardous nor hard to manage relative
to other toxic industrial wastes” (World Nuclear Association,
2014). The cleanliness of nuclear
technologies is one of the primary reasons why nuclear power
has remained strong as nations
turn to building green energy economies.

In economic terms, nuclear power is formidable among green
energy technologies. As
was previously stated, nuclear is already well-established in
many developed countries, which
means that nuclear is a more accessible alternative to coal-
burning electricity generation.
Furthermore, the amount of nuclear material readily available
could produce more than 600ZJ of
energy, which is about 1,500 times the yearly global demand
(Afgan, 2013, p. 305). Comparing
the projected 2019 prices of generating electricity using
different technologies, nuclear is
cheaper than solar: solar-generated electricity costs
$130.0/MWh compared to nuclear’s
$96.1/MWh (Levelized Cost, 2014). The lower cost of nuclear
is largely due to its efficiency,
which will be discussed below.
Because of the general public’s safety concerns, nuclear
energy’s innovations have
focused a great deal on increasing plant reliability. For
example, an Alabama facility has
received attention for its development of a method, called
XEDOR, that would prevent defects in
fuel rods (U.S. Nuclear, 2011). This method avoids additional

costs and unnecessary danger to
personnel by calculating stress on the fuel rod and determining
how close the fuel rod is to
cladding damage. Another example is an Illinois power station,
which developed an award-
winning injection method that maintains plant efficiency (U.S.
Nuclear, 2011). Iron buildup
from the nuclear process can hinder power output. The Illinois
process injects a chemical iron
dispersant and effectively slows down iron accumulation.
Even without these innovations, nuclear energy is already one
of the most efficient forms
of electricity generation, with a capacity factor of 90% by some
counts (Levelized Cost, 2014),
91% by others (Nuclear Energy, 2014). For comparison, coal-
burning electricity generation has
a capacity factor of 85% (Levelized Cost, 2014). Efficiency is a
significant issue in economic
terms, because it is the measure of how much energy is
produced for the energy lost in the
process. Nuclear has demonstrated its economic and industrial

strengths, which present a
formidable challenge to other energy alternatives.
The Argument for Solar
Solar energy generation, while not sharing the tenure of nuclear
in the energy market, has
gained much interest in recent decades. When compared to
other renewable energy technologies
using fixed criteria values (that evaluate greenhouse gas
emissions, reliability of energy supply,
etc), solar power received the ranking of 1 (Troldborg, 2014,
1180). Solar panels use
photovoltaic (PV) cells to convert solar energy directly into
electricity (Locke, 2008).
Photovoltaics do not require the help of machines or devices
with moving parts, which makes
solar energy generation a simple and self-sustaining process
(Hosenuzzaman, 2015, p. 285).
Solar technologies are hailed by advocates as clean, safe,
reliable, and free of
environmental contaminants (Yang, 2014, p. 112). One of the
more obvious advantages to
exploiting solar energy is that sunlight, as a resource, is
practically inexhaustible

(Hosenuzzaman, 2015, p. 285). In terms of solar’s relationship
to greenhouse gas emissions, the
solar energy technologies currently implemented save more than
53 million tons of carbon
dioxide from polluting the environment yearly (Thampi, 2014).
A point of contrast between
solar and nuclear energy technologies is the production of non-
gaseous waste products. Solar
PV does not generate any liquid or solid wastes, which make
them a more environmentally-
friendly form of renewable energy technology (Hosenuzzaman,
2015, p. 285).
The market for solar power has been limited, due to high costs
(Troldborg, 2014, p.
1176), but that has not stopped nations from reaping economic
benefits as result of a developing
their solar markets. Greece’s growing reliance on solar power
technologies has created
approximately 4,250 full time jobs in the last four years
(Mentis, 2014, p. 713), which could set
an example for other nations seeking to both make
environmental amends and develop their

economies.
Solar power technologies excell in terms of innovation (Mentis,
2014, p. 711). An
example of innovation that has profited the solar industry in
recent years is the development of
thin film solar cells (Dutta, 2012, p. 33). Thin film solar cells
are more efficient and their
development has contributed to the solar market’s efforts to
lower energy costs to competitive
levels (Dutta, 2012, p. 37). Additionally, advanced thin film
solar cells are superbly resistant to
radiation, making them more reliable than previous forms
(Hosenuzzaman, 2015, p. 287).
Unfortunately, these breakthrough cells are not yet
commercially available (Hosenuzzaman,
2015, p. 295).
The high degree of research going into solar and the progress
being made could explain
why solar energy has increased more than 20 times in the last
15 years in the European Union
(Sanz-Casado, 2014, p. 742). In the United States, much of the
innovation in solar has been
business-model related. For instance, the California firm Solar

City has rejected a pure sales-
only approach, turning instead to a model that sells electricity
generated by Solar City-owned
panels installed on consumers’ roofs (Kammen, 2014).
Despite all the apparent success solar is having in technological
and economic
development, solar does fall short in terms of efficiency, with a
projected 20% capacity factor for
2019 (Levelized Cost, 2014). All other widely-discussed green
energy technologies have
capacity factors over 30%, and many reach 80% or above. Solar
energy’s shortcomings in cost
and efficiency will reflect poorly on it in evaluation.
Evaluation
The criteria of environmental impact, industrial efficiency, and
economic concerns were
used to evaluate nuclear and solar technologies. Environmental
consequences are the reason for
focusing on green energy alternatives, so it is important that the
preferred method meets a certain

standard of cleanliness. When comparing energy technologies,
efficiency is the most useful
measure of industrial viability. Finally, it is important that the
preferred energy practice is
competitive in economic terms.
Nuclear power met each of the criteria squarely. It had better
statistics in terms of cost
and efficiency when compared to solar power. Apart from that,
the fact that nuclear energy is
already well-established in the energy market means that it
would be easier to build an
infrastructure more dependent on that technology.
In terms of environmental impact, nuclear is comparable to
renewable energies like solar.
The carbon dioxide emissions of each fall in the same range
(Life Cycle, 2013), which makes the
contrasting irrelevant to the question. Solar has the slight
advantage of not producing any solid
or liquid wastes. This is not so great a blow to nuclear energy,
because the waste produced by
nuclear is fairly easy to handle (Afgan, 2013, p. 306), giving it
little bearing on which green
energy technology should be emphasized.

The projected 2019 price of nuclear-generated electricity
($96.1/MWh) is lower than the
corresponding price of solar PV-generated energy
($130.0/MWh) (Levelized Cost, 2014).
Although solar development has been shown to create jobs
(Mentis, 2014, p. 713), the cost of
building and maintaining solar technologies makes it unlikely to
be adopted by a nation in
economic straits.
Though solar power has been disproportionately researched in
recent years, solar PV
technologies have not approached the efficiency of nuclear.
Solar has a 20% capacity factor
when compared to nuclear’s 90% capacity factor (Levelized
Cost, 2014). Although the safety of
nuclear electricity generation has been questioned by a cautious
public, industry innovations are
making the practice safer all the time (U.S. Nuclear, 2011).
In summary, nuclear energy technologies find themselves on
approximately equal
footings with solar PV on the issue of environmental impact.

The availability of nuclear
resources paired with the efficiency of the reactors make
nuclear technology more viable as the
leading green energy practice. The lower cost of nuclear-
generated electricity makes the nuclear
solution more appealing economically. Overall, nuclear
demands that it take priority in the
development of green energy practices.
Conclusion
It is important to develop a strategy for moving toward green
energy technologies, both
to combat any threat posed to the environment by pollutants and
to make a nation more self-
sufficient. Being that nuclear and solar energy technologies are
comparable in environmental
impact, the answer to which one should be emphasized rests on
economic and efficiency
concerns. Nuclear energy is both cheaper and more efficient.
In any case, a combination of
green energy technologies is the best strategy to replace the
environmentally-damaging coal-

burning technologies. However, to answer this crisis with
urgency, more should be done to
bolster the nuclear energy infrastructure. This would involve
more research being done on
nuclear technologies, more nuclear facilities being built, and
educating the general public about
the benefits of nuclear energy.

References
Afgan, N. (2013). Sustainable nuclear energy dilemma. Thermal
Science, 17, 305-321.
Dutta, V. (2012). Thin Solar Cell Technologies - Current Status.
AIP Conference
Proceedings, 33-37.
Hosenuzzaman, M., Rahim, N., Selvaraj, J., Hasanuzzaman, M.,
Malek, A., & Nahar, A. (2015).
Global prospects, progress, policies, and environmental impact
of solar photovoltaic
power generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
41, 284-297.
Kammen, D. (2014). Solar energy innovation and Silicon
Valley. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 70, 45-53. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation
Resources in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2014. (2014, April 1). Retrieved February 1, 2015,
from

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity
Generation. (2013, January 1). Retrieved
February 1, 2015, from
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf
Locke, S. (2008, October). How does solar power work?
Retrieved January 31, 2015, from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-solar-
power-work/
Mentis, D. (2014). Electrifying Greece with solar and wind
energy. Thermal Science, 18, 709-
720.
Nosowitz, D. (2011, March). How Nuclear Reactors Work, and
How They Fail. Popular
Science.
Nuclear Energy in America. (2014, July). Retrieved February 1,
2015, from
http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-
Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Quick-Facts-
Nuclear-Energy-in-America
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-solar-
power-work/

Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Quick-Facts-Nuclear-
Energy-in-America
Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Quick-Facts-Nuclear-
Energy-in-America
Sanz-Casado, E., Lascurain-Sánchez, M., Serrano-Lopez, A.,
Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P.
(2014). Production, consumption and research on solar energy:
The Spanish and German
case. Renewable Energy, 68, 733-744.
Thampi, R., Byrne, O., & Surolia, P. (2014). Renewable energy
technologies and its adaptation
in an urban environment. AIP Conference Proceedings.
Troldborg, M., Heslop, S., & Hough, R. (2014). Assessing the
sustainability of renewable energy
technologies using multi-criteria analysis. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews,
39, 1173–1184-1173–1184.
U.S. Nuclear Energy Industry Innovations That Focus on Aging
Management or Long-Term
Plant Reliability. (2011, January). Retrieved January 31, 2015,
from

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Industry-Innovation/U-S-
Nuclear-Energy-
Industry-Innovations-That-Focus
World Nuclear Association. (2014, September 1). Retrieved
February 21, 2015, from
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-
Wastes/Radioactive-
Waste-Management/
Yang, L., He, B., & Ye, M. (2014). The application of solar
technologies in building energy
efficiency: BISE design in solar-powered residential buildings.
Technology in Society,
38, 111-118.
Nuclear-Energy-Industry-Innovations-That-Focus
Nuclear-Energy-Industry-Innovations-That-Focus
ttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-
Wastes/Radioactive-W
ttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-
Wastes/Radioactive-W
By Wednesday, September 23, 2015, respond to the discussion
questions below and submit your responses to the Discussion

Area.
Support your answers with examples and research and cite your
research using the APA format.
Investment Alternatives and Capital Budgeting Methodologies
Some companies' common stocks pay cash dividends, while
others' do not. However, most bond issues do pay periodic
interest. The preferred stock financing option also pays a
dividend. Based on your readings, please respond to the
following questions below:
· From the investor's point of view, analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of the three investment alternatives—common
stock, bonds, and preferred stock. Why would an investor select
an investment in bonds over common stock, even if the return
on the common stock investment is higher?
· From the firm's perspective, evaluate the pros and cons of
using different combinations of debt, common stock, and
preferred stock to raise funds. Why do some firms use preferred
stock and others do not? Is it a matter of subjective preference,
or are there sound theoretical reasons for the use of specific
sources of funding?
· How does an investor's evaluation of the investment
alternatives differ from the evaluation by a company trying to
raise funds?
· Among all the capital budgeting methodologies and their
respective rules, which would you use and why? What are the
advantages of one rule over another? Does the size or the nature
of an investment have any impact on which method should be
used? Why or why not? How might a rule be improved to make
it more effective?
Triplet Thesis Statements
Template #1: CLAIMbecauseA, B, and C.
Examples:
People should donate blood regularly because donating could
help replenish the shortage of blood in blood banks across

America, donating blood saves lives, and donating blood has
many health benefits for the donor.
Several reality TV shows are revealing the positive side of
humanity by inspiring change, dispelling common stereotypes,
and calling attention to issues the average American faces on a
daily basis.
Template #2: Naysayer’s claim (sentence).However,
CLAIMbecauseA, B, and C.
Some people may believe that there isn’t really a shortage of
blood, or that donating can pose health risks to both donors and
recipients, but these are just myths. People should donate blood
regularly because donating could help replenish the shortage of
blood in blood banks across America, donating blood saves
lives, and donating blood has many health benefits for the
donor.
Many people would agree that reality television is riddled with
demonstrations of bad behavior, idiocy, loose morals and unreal
ideals of physical beauty--reality TV has earned its fair share of
critics. However, there are reality TV shows out there that are
inspiring change, dispelling common stereotypes, and bringing
attention to issues the average American faces on a daily basis.
Template #3: Naysayer’s claim (sentence).However,
CLAIMbecauseA, B, and C.Zinger (call to action/summary).
Some people may believe that there isn’t really a shortage of
blood, or that donating can pose health risks to both donors and
recipients, but these are just myths. People should donate blood
regularly because donating could help replenish the shortage of
blood in blood banks across America, donating blood saves
lives, and donating blood has many health benefits for the
donor. It is the duty of all healthy citizens to step up and
participate in local blood drives.
Many people would agree that reality television is riddled with
demonstrations of bad behavior, idiocy, loose morals and unreal

ideals of physical beauty--reality TV has earned its fair share of
critics. However, there are reality TV shows out there that are
inspiring change, dispelling common stereotypes, and bringing
attention to issues the average American faces on a daily basis.
Reality television is actually home to a whole sub-genre of
charitable and inspiring programming.

Promoting Green Energy Practices 1 Pro.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Promoting Green Energy Practices 1 Pro.docx

Similar to Promoting Green Energy Practices 1 Pro.docx (15)

More from amrit47

More from amrit47 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Promoting Green Energy Practices 1 Pro.docx