Prince Mohammad University Viability of Nuclear Energy Discussion i need PowerPoint slides from the attached file, from 8 to 12 slides to present it Runnin

Prince Mohammad University Viability of Nuclear Energy Discussion i need PowerPoint slides from the attached file, from 8 to 12 slides to present it Running Header: VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Viability of Nuclear Energy
Saif alghamdi
201302375
1
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
2
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Is nuclear power the solution to our energy needs? Nuclear energy has been the trivial
form of energy that has been debated and critiqued over the past years. With the quest to achieve
the production of green energy that is friendly to the environment, a lot of exploration is done in
the quality and cost parameters of energy production. Alternatives to the traditional use of fossil
fuels have been tried out and researched upon in a bid to cover the shortcomings which fossil
fuels have left in the globe. Fossil fuels have been a ready source of energy from the onset of the
industrial revolution. However, their rocketing prices have taken a toll on contaminating the
earth through carbon emissions. Alternative fuels with fewer carbon emissions and less cost
have, in a way, not become satisfactory as a means of energy production. This is because the
amount of energy produced is insufficient to power up the world’s growing economies.
1.2 Purpose of the study
This study will address whether nuclear power could be a viable solution to the energy problem
that the world is facing in their growing economies. The study will also discuss the parameters
with which a source of energy, such as nuclear and other traditional sources, are to be graded,
selected, and discriminated as a means for energy production.
2. Literature review
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
3
Previous work in the controversial area of nuclear energy production has been done
extensively in the context of production, consumption, and general safety in the processes
therein. One lingering question relates to carbon emission from our energy sources as
environmentalists recommend decarbonizing energy production to prevent the harmful effects of
global warming. According to Petrescu et al., (2016), nuclear energy produces no carbon
emissions as its energy production is based on nuclear fission instead of burning of chemical to
the effect that the electricity is produced without any output from carbon. Horvath & Rachlew
(2016) avers that this would be a significant step towards decarbonizing since nuclear plants only
release greenhouse gasses during their ancillary use, such as construction, mining, maintenance,
and fuel processing well as decommissioning.
Additionally, nuclear energy is said to have a higher capacity factor than any other
source; renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. In energy production, capacity factor refers to
when a power plant actually produces energy (Pavel, Budu & Moraru, 2017). According to
Morgan et al. (2018), nuclear power plants in the United States registered an average capacity
factor of 92.3%. In other words, nuclear plants in the United States operated at full power for 336
days out of the possible 365 days in one year. The deficit 29 days account for the time the
nuclear plants were taken off the grid for maintenance purposes. As a big contrast, Morgan et al.
(2018) posit that other energy sources score poorly with hydroelectric systems at 38.2%, wind
turbines at 34.5, and solar energy at25.1%. Coal and natural gas power plants can only generate
electricity at half the time generated by nuclear power plants. As such, Morgan et al. (2018)
conclude that nuclear energy emerges as the winner regarding power supply reliability. It can
generate full power for many days in a year, more than any other energy source, because it
requires less maintenance.
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
4
Contrary to common belief, Elliott (2017) argues that nuclear power accounts for the
least emission of radiation into the environment compared to other major sources of energy.
According to Morgan et al. (2018), coal remains the primary source of radioactive emissions into
the environment globally. This is because so much coal is burned globally, which gasifies its
organic materials, concentrating its mineral components into the resulting waste known as fly ash
(). In many countries, such as the US, China, Hungary, and even South Africa, fly ash is used to
extract uranium (Abu-Khader, 2009). This confirms that nuclear power is not much of a threat to
radiation emissions to the environment.
While nuclear power plants do harbor a risk of radiation emission, primarily through the nuclear
wastes, proper management of the nuclear wastes mitigates this harm. According to Elliott
(2017), nuclear wastes need to be stored safely in impenetrable concrete and steel dry casks.
They are considered to be operational reactors, which help their radiation to decline slowly over
the years. Building such nuclear waste management systems adds to the expensive costs of
setting up a nuclear plant. According to Pearce (2012), the high expenses associated with the
construction and management of nuclear plants and its resultant waste on the background of
potential risks to the surrounding environment explain why nuclear power is yet to be accepted
as a viable and sustainable source of energy.
In considering the parameters to be considered in determining the viability of an energy
source, Petrescu et al. (2016) posit that its impact on the environment and the capacity factor
should be the primary considerations. According to Horvath & Rachlew (2016), with proper
waste management and adequate safety measures to prevent accidents at the power plants that
could risk radiation emission to the surrounding environment and its occupants, nuclear power is
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
5
of no harm the environment. Due to its decarbonizing element, nuclear power should be
considered an alternative to traditional energy sources as it will significantly prevent the
impending dangers of global warming. Elliott (2017) states that with the highest capacity factor
among all other energy sources, nuclear power should be considered a viable alternative to
energy production with adequate risk management protocols to ensure it does not harm the
environment and those around such power plants.
Research Question: considering the benefits and risks posed by nuclear power, is nuclear
power a viable and sustainable energy source?
3. Methodology
3.1 Rationale for research
Energy is at the heart of economic development, but the same must be weighed against
other factors, such as its impact on the environment. Energy sources have been cited among the
main contributors to global warming. As such, a paradigm shift is needed to harness green
energy or energy sources that are not harmful to the environment. At the same time, the energy
source must be in a position to meet the demand needs of energy, especially in the developed
countries, and do so sustainably and over a long period. Nuclear energy has been considered as
capable of meeting the energy demands due to its high capacity factor, but reservations are raised
based on its potential harm to the environment. The research seeks to evaluate nuclear power as a
viable energy source by weighing its benefits against its potential risks to the environment and
populations around such power plants.
3.2 Setting the context for the study
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
6
As concerns over global warming continue to be raised globally, I felt the need to study the
merits of some of the recommended strategies for combating globalization’s impending harms.
Nuclear power remains a dominant theme in these discussions. I felt motivated to evaluate its
potential benefits to energy supply as well as its associated risks to the environment and the
populations living around where such power plants are planted. Besides reading extensively on
this subject from available literature, I also surveyed to understand better the competing needs
and concerns surrounding nuclear power’s adoption as a viable alternative to some of the
traditional sources of power.
3.3 Participants
I opted for online surveys to gather information as one of the precautionary measures
brought about by the need to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Additionally, online surveys
can prove resourceful as it is possible to collect information from people in different jurisdictions
who are informed and interested in such topics. The survey targeted diverse demographics such
as members of the general public to assess their perception of nuclear power and energy experts
whose input was meant to provide informed perspective on the benefits and risks associated with
nuclear power compared to traditional energy sources.
3.4 Data Collection
The survey was built on the information gathered from the literature review. Before
sending the final survey to participants, I conducted a pilot survey with my friends and family,
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
7
which helped me adjust the questions to ensure they are phrased appropriately for better
information during the actual survey.
3.5 Procedure
The survey was entirely online. Having identified specific individuals with immense knowledge
in energy production, I sourced their contact details and reached out to them using their email
addresses. While not all identified individuals participated in my survey, a good number of them
did, and their contribution significantly enriched this study. For the general public, I used
voluntary participation through various social media platforms where people participated in the
survey. The survey happened for two weeks; 18th -31st May, after which the survey’s feedback
was analyzed.
3.6 Data Analysis
My survey was ideally questions, and thus the feedback was mainly in text form. I used NVIVO
as it is the ideal software for analyzing non-numerical data. Additionally, due to the use of social
media in my data collection, NVIVO proved the best software compatible with this approach to
data collection.
4. Results and Discussion
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
8
The data collected from my survey seemed to validate the information already gathered
from the literature review. The general public manifested an apparent lack of understanding in
the scope of nuclear power, with the majority being pessimistic about the amount of harm it
could bring to the environment and the immediate surroundings where such power plants were
planted. In a question specifically asking whether they would endorse a plan to plant a nuclear
power plant in their neighborhood, all participants objected. However, many of them confessed
to a lack of information on the intricacies of nuclear power generation. Either way, they were
concerned about the environmental harm that could arise due to the increased use of nuclear
power. Instead of nuclear power, many favored investment in renewable energy sources such as
solar and wind energy, which they considered to be less harmful to the environment and the
immediate surroundings.
Participants with a better understanding of nuclear energy and its production, in general,
exhibited a divided opinion on nuclear power being a viable source and alternative to energy
production. Similar to the information from the literature review, those against the idea of
increased use of nuclear power raised concerns over its risks to the population around such
power plants. Citing examples from nuclear plant accidents such as the TMI reactor in
Pennsylvania and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, they raised their concerns about such accidents
and the resultant exposure to radiation of many people living around such plants. Additionally,
they expressed concerns over waste management from the power plants as the waste poses a risk
not just to the environment but also to living organisms that may experience health complications
due to continued exposure to radiation from nuclear waste. The huge costs of developing a
nuclear power plant and its maintenance costs were also a concern to others.
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
9
Despite the many reservations against the idea of generating power through nuclear
plants, a good number of the participants also acknowledged the massive benefits of nuclear
power over other traditional sources of energy. Nuclear power high capacity factor was cited as
the main advantage as this can transform power needs in any country and reduce the need for
many sources of energy. Just one nuclear power plant can replace some traditional power plants.
Additionally, the fact that it emits no carbon to the environment augured well with many experts
who expressed their growing concerns over the increasing emissions of carbon to the atmosphere
amidst impending effects of global warming.
5. Limitations
Over time, nuclear power has proved to be a controversial topic among experts and
government agencies. To that end, personal biases are likely to influence the opinion shared by
individuals in the survey and those whose perspectives have been captured in the literature
review. While deliberate efforts were made only to consider professional standpoints on the
issue, a biased contribution to this study can run down the aims and objectives of this study.
6. Significance of the Study
This study is an essential contribution to the ongoing debate over alternative sources of
energy that should be considered to power the country’s economy while also helping in
environmental conservation, especially concerning global warming. Besides highlighting some
of the benefits and risks associated with nuclear power as a considered alternative to traditional
sources of energy, it also captures the perception shared by people on matters of nuclear energy,
which can be considered in policymaking.
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
10
7. Conclusion
Power generation is vital for any developed or developing country through the power
supply that many industries operate. This makes power necessary for the economic development
of any state. Power generation must, however, be balanced with the effects it has on the
environment. Traditional energy sources such as coal have been associated with carbon
emissions into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. New sources of energy
must, therefore, be sought to supply the demand for power in a country and cause little or no
harm to the environment. Nuclear energy has this potential, but its benefits must be weighed
against its potential risks to the environment and its immediate surroundings. By capitalizing on
the benefits of nuclear power and mitigating its associated risks, nuclear power can be a viable
and sustainable source of energy globally.
11
VIABILITY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
References
Abu-Khader, M. M. (2009). Recent advances in nuclear power: A review. Progress in Nuclear
Energy, 51(2), 225-235.
Elliott, D. (2017). Nuclear Power. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Horvath, A., & Rachlew, E. (2016). Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and
possibilities. Ambio, 45(1), 38-49.
Morgan, M. G., Abdulla, A., Ford, M. J., & Rath, M. (2018). US nuclear power: The vanishing
low-carbon wedge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28), 71847189.
Pavel, G. L., Budu, A. R., & Moraru, D. E. (2017). Optimization of energy mix-Nuclear power
and Renewable Energy for low emissions energy source a benefit for generations to
come. Energy Procedia, 112, 412-417.
Pearce, J. M. (2012). Limitations of nuclear power as a sustainable energy
source. Sustainability, 4(6), 1173-1187.
Petrescu, F. I., Apicella, A., Petrescu, R. V., Kozaitis, S., Bucinell, R., Aversa, R., & AbuLebdeh, T. (2016). Environmental protection through nuclear energy. American Journal
of Applied Sciences, 13(9), 941-946.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment