Garrison Hurd

Caruso
UWRT 1103
Nov. 18, 2015
Is Nuclear Energy the way away from fossil fuels?

The consumption of fossil fuels for energy can only last so much longer
at the rate in which we use energy are using them. Over 190 nations
understand the need to find alternate forms of energy and are making an
effort to find new, reliable, clean, and efficient energy sources to replace
fossil fuels and reduce the carbon released into the air (PLOS para. 1). The
idea that seems to keep coming to everyones mind is nuclear energy, but
there are many skepticisms about it, especially from environmentalist
concerning bringing up past meltdowns like the ones in the 1950s and 1960s
in the U.S., UK, Switzerland, Canada, and France. And most notably the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 and the Chernobyl
disaster in the Soviet Union (Wikipedia sec. 7). These events catastrophes
come to peoples minds immediately whenever the idea of nuclear energy is
mentioned,. aAnd that is what I decided to do my product on, which was a
political cartoon. The public just thinks of the big past events of nuclear
meltdowns because thats what the media talk about and focus on rather
than actual facts or benefits. The public think that nuclear power plants are
unstable and cause fallout around them but this is just not true not the case.

Actually nNuclear power is one of the only safe and clean forms of energy
that can replace fossil fuels right now because it is the only renewable
energy source that can equal the amount of energy output. The political
cartoon I made shows this in the frame where a tree is planted near the
nuclear power plant showing that, despite the general publics view, it is
actually indeed very safe. However, many nations have already implemented
nuclear power plants as a major source of energy, including the U.S. So why
havent we (the global community) hasnt the global community already
converted to clean, nuclear energy in place of fossil fuels? The people still
dont trust it, but with new technology and the examples other nations like
Sweden and France are setting, the nuclear energy front will expand as old
skeptics are assured by new technology and techniques (PLOS para. 1, 5-17,
21-31).
In 1972 Sweden was one of the first nations to use commercial nuclear
power plants. However, they didnt use it to reduce CO2 emissions at first. It
was first used to reduce the need to import oil and to save four major rivers
from the destructive installation of hydropower plants. Hydropower is
generated by building dams in rivers and these dams cause unnatural
flooding above the dam and severe drought and soil deprivation below it.
This is a reason why I chose to stand on nuclear energy, as far as anyone has
researched it is not environmentally destructive if the power plant is
maintained properly so a meltdown doesnt occur. But an unseen benefit was
that by 1986 it had cut the countrys CO2 emissions by roughly 75% (PLOS

para. 5). Sweden is a best case scenario in which the majority of their power
is made from clean and cheap nuclear power (compared to other sources of
energy), and it should be noted that Sweden had some of the lowest
electricity prices in the world at the time (PLOS para. 7). These are the kind
of facts that the media should be focusing on, how these types of countries
are nearly oil free and have reduced their CO2 to a minimum. That is why a
political cartoon is a great way of getting this information across. It has been
used all throughout time in newspapers and can get all over the globe very
quickly. If the public was aware of how successful Sweden has been with
nuclear energy then I am positive that they will be more on board. Especially
with new technology in generation III and IV power plants. To globally
accomplish what Sweden has already, the majority of nuclear power plants
would have to be built in countries that have an existing nuclear power plant
model with regulations. This works out well since those countries end up
creating around 90% of CO2 emissions globally (PLOS para. 9). But the fact
that those countries do create 90% of the emissions is a problem in of itself.
We have the resources to start using nuclear power plants as a source
of energy to replace fossil fuels within the next twenty-five to thirty years
(Brook sec. 3.2). Countries now starting to adopt nuclear energy techniques
or advancing their own now can do it much more quickly than Sweden
because plans for power plants and advanced designs are readily available
on the international market. Thanks to Sweden for already having a flawless
design so far that other countries should be copying and implementing as

soon as they can. Political cartoons could get the point across that nuclear
energy is safe or at least make people research it more causing them to
come across the same info I did about Sweden and maybe get this ball
rolling. This is all the more reason for countries to begin switching over to
nuclear energy. Of course the deciding factor is the public opinion but if the
national governments show these facts on a nation-wide basis to get the
public on the side of nuclear energy then we could actually be getting
somewhere. The technological innovations we have created for nuclear
energy have made it much more safe and effective and should give the
people all the reassurance they need.
Most nuclear power plants have a uranium core (generation I-III) but
the generation IV uses full fuel recycling based on proliferation-resistant
pyroprocessing which extends the life of uranium and opens the door up to
thorium. Thorium is a much safer and longer lasting element than is Uranium
and is more readily available in the natural land. Thus reducing the annual
mining needed to run all if the necessary nuclear plants by 150 times and
giving us enough resources and energy for thousands of years (Brook sec.
3.2). This is the best case scenario though. Obviously not all countries are
going to be able to afford or have the man power to run generation IV
nuclear power plants so as a global community we could help each other out
and overlook monetary funds for once to save our planet. This is somewhat
seen in my product when on the third frame you see the government placing
a table over the oil drum to protect the globe. This is hinting at the fact that

the government is really trying to protect the earth rather than just choose
the quickest and easiest way out. Although the government is in it for the
money in the long run the intentions they are using are very sound and make
sense.
Nuclear energy is the best option for a transition energy source but it
does of course have its drawbacks which include possible meltdowns,
nuclear waste disposal, and funding/accountability. Nobody wants to fund or
be accountable for a project that could end in disaster especially when the
public opinion is against it. The nuclear energy ball wont get rolling until the
public understands what it is and how it could help which is where my
product comes in. It can easily get the information across the globe in
symbolic manner that isnt hard to understand or read.. The goal of nuclear
energy activists should be to inform the public about the benefits of nuclear
energy and how far we have come from the Three Island disaster and
Chernobyl incident. Instead of wasting time trying to get politicians on their
side they need to be getting the public on their side because once that
happens a funding plan and construction could start almost immediately. My
political cartoon is a way to show that, its probably not the best of them but
I think its one of the most effective. Political cartoons have been used since
the invention of the newspaper and have had major impacts on our country
the world. It helped gain support for the revolutionary war and has possibly
caused certain presidents or senators to win which changed the course of
our country. It is creative, simple, but yet it shows a lot of information in an

image that could change the course of energy sources for the better. Nuclear
energy symbolized in my political cartoon is the strongest way to get the
message across to the people.

Bibliography
(New)
http://www.sciencedirect.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/science/article/pii/S0
921800908002620#
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

(Old)
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/06/fossil-fuels-renewable-energyresources/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/7/8/1221552/-GETTING-TO-ZEROIs-renewable-energy-economically-viable
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Advantages_FossilFuels.php
http://earthtechling.com/2010/12/is-nuclear-power-a-clean-energysource/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/08/can-world-economysurvive-without-fossil-fuels

Sources Cited (MLA)

(OLD)
Pickering, Keith. "GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy
Economically Viable?" GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy Economically
Viable? 8 July 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2015
"Advantages of Fossil Fuels - Conserve Energy Future."
ConserveEnergyFuture. 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2015

Defreitas, Susan. "Is Nuclear Power A Clean Energy Source? |

EarthTechling." EarthTechling. 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2015
Elliott, Larry. "Can the World Economy Survive without Fossil Fuels?"
Theguardian.com. 8 Apr. 2015. Web. 6 Oct. 2015
(New)
"Public Support for Reducing US Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Investigating
Household Willingness-to-pay for Energy Research and Development." Login
to Atkins Library - J. Murrey Atkins Library - UNC Charlotte. 15 Jan. 2009.
Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
"Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by
Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional
Deployment Data." PLOS ONE:. 13 May 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
"Nuclear Meltdown." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 19 Nov.
2015.