As a Conservative Democrat, Lieutenant General Doyle believes in taking a balanced approach to environmental issues. A balanced approach to improving the environment involves pursuing alternative forms of energy but continuing the implementation of nuclear energy, oil, coal and gas for which we already have all the infrastructures in place. Doyle recognizes that there is currently a great reliance on traditional energy industries so a long term transition towards alternative energy will be put in place. Over time, Doyle will phase out these traditional forms of energy as cleaner forms of energy become established.
To address the previously established industries, Doyle plans to improve their standards to have less impact on the environment.
…show more content…
Natural gas produces “roughly 95% fewer pollutants than gasoline or diesel fuel when burned”. We have enough reserves to last for about 87 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011 took a major step forward to promote natural gas. This act renewed the tax credit on natural gas fuel for five years, it gave new credits for buying and producing natural gas vehicles, and it gave a tax credit for building new natural gas stations. Doyle supports this type of legislation. This is the type of legislation that gives companies that drill for natural gas to the incentive to increase their production. As president, Doyle will extend the tax credit for another five years. Doyle also believes that buyers and producers of natural gas vehicles should continue to receive tax credits. This is a job creator, and it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. This also means that these citizens who are polluting less will be …show more content…
Nuclear energy only creates minimal negative effects to the environment. Nuclear energy produces steam and low levels of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy is also beneficial seeing that it produces a large amount of energy for a low cost. Nuclear reactors generate energy at a lower cost than oil, gas or coal. This nuclear energy will be a stable source of energy seeing that it is a base load source and it is synergistic with other renewable resources. In 2012, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the building of two new nuclear reactors. Doyle supports this decision to build new reactors as well as continue operating nuclear power plants as long as they can pass the safety requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thousands of people are needed to build each nuclear reactor. After a reactor is built, hundreds of highly skilled workers are needed to run it. Seeing this, a large sum of long term job opportunities will arise for American citizens. These jobs will both positively impact the environment as well as the economy. Nuclear energy technology has continued to improve with two types of reactors; the Molten Salt Reactor and the Fast Breeding Reactor. Doyle believes nuclear energy will be a beneficial energy source for the
He believes there are other ways to end Obama’s war on coal than to put the lives of coal miners and their families at risk. Using clean coal is one alternative Rockefeller presents instead of blocking the EPA’s rules on the pollutant gases. The safety of West Virginians is in his best interest. This speech reflects his ideas and beliefs about the past, present, and future use of coal. He supports the EPA’s rules on limiting mercury, acid gases, and other toxic pollution from power plants.
Lennon says, “Within the first 20 years, methane escaping from within and around the wells, pipelines and compressor stations is 105 times more powerful a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide” (pg#). This is really good use of this strategy because this makes an appeal to logos. This make Lennon more credible because he is using very good shocking facts in his article. This makes the readers trust him and helps his audience side with his argument of how bad fracking is. This is so because this is how the gas is getting produced is from the dangerous fracking which doesn’t just release bad greenhouse gases but also fouls our wells and makes our water undrinkable.
Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than traditional energy sources because energy is not produced by burning molecules but splitting atoms. ‘An energy mix including nuclear power has the lowest impact on wildlife and Ecosystems’ as shown by a Conservation Biology paper. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by nearly half which shows the benefits and popularity of nuclear power use. Nuclear power has many environmental benefits such as small waste production, leaves no adverse effect on water, land or any habitats. By reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to Nuclear Energy, we will sustain the environment, quality of air, improving the overall quality of
Since the United States will be getting their own natural gases from fracking then that means the “United States will not have to buy and import natural gases from other countries, saving money in the process” (Rogowsky) therefore the “United States will become more independent and not rely on other countries” (Rogowsky). This is important because the people of the United States will also be able to save money because “the gas prices for cars will go down significantly as the gas supply goes up” (Rogowsky). Not only this, but the prices for medicine are sure to decline as well, “natural gases are an important chemical feedstock in some packaging medicine” (Rogowsky). With fracking, the medicine prices will take a dive also resulting in the American people saving money. With the increase of fracking there will be a higher supply of gas and medicine, which makes the prices decrease and people will save
In the denouement, this group wholeheartedly believes that nuclear power plants are our future. Again, nuclear plants are more efficient than any other fossil fuel such as oil, coal and natural gas. They are also more reliable. Nuclear energy has no emissions and a cost that is better for the consumer.
“Nuclear power will help provide the electricity that our growing economy needs without increasing emissions. This is truly an environmentally responsible source of energy.” Michael Burgess Prior to the introduction of nuclear energy, fossil fuel was thought to be the only available source in producing energy. Although fossil fuel, such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas, contains high energy value, it produces too many harmful byproducts that ultimately pollute our environment. With the rising concerns over global warming as more and more greenhouse gases accumulate in our Earth’s atmosphere, many voice such opinions that new alternative, yet sustainable method must be adopted to produce energy.
Using natural gas from fracking is a better and safer alternative than using coal because natural gas does not emit as much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The graphs presented on natfuel.com shows that the amount of carbon dioxide
I am writing this report to advise the Far North Distrcit Council on the use of nuclear reactors as a power source. While New Zealand has a history of being anti-nuclear there are many benefits of having a nuclear power station. I will discuss the pros and cons of building a reactor and how they work. There are two types of nuclear reactors these are called fission and fusion. A fusion reaction takes place when two lighter atomic nuclei usually deuterium and tritium or helium are bonded into a heavier element and give off energy this is usually done by forcing them to collide at very high speeds in order to over come the force produced by coulombic repulsion.
There is no doubt that nuclear power plants are an efficient way to create electricity. The efficiency of nuclear power is determined similarly to other heat engines, the amount of electric power produced for each unit of thermal power gives the plant its thermal efficiency. Typical nuclear power plants achieve efficiencies around 33-37%, comparable to fossil fueled power plants. Higher temperature and more modern designs like the Generation IV nuclear reactors
The risks and benefits of nuclear power need to be carefully weighed before erecting a nuclear power plant. And, if a nuclear power plant is built proper training should be taught and the safety rules need
No air pollutants are produced through the production of nuclear energy ("Clean Air Energy") while widely used fossil fuels emit harmful amounts of Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide into the air ("The Sources and Solutions: Fossil Fuels"). These chemicals can negatively affect human health. Nuclear plants produce clean energy, and worker safety has improved. The employee accident rate in nuclear plants decreased from 0.38 accidents in 1997 to 0.1 accidents in 2015 per 200,000 worker hours ("US Nuclear Industrial Safety Accident Rate"). Worker safety has shown continuous improvement with fewer workplace incidents as stricter safety measures are enacted.
Nuclear Power Nuclear power plants are the highest source of power. Making or building more power plants in the State of Connecticut will open up new job opportunities,ect.. The State of Connecticut should create more nuclear power plants. The benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. Nuclear power plants are known to be the fastest, cleanlier, and have no health or injury concern.
Tu Le Professor Matlock English 1301 4 December 2017 Nuclear Energy To Be Utilized and Why Imagine if global warming and loss of ice are no longer a problem, if severe weather patterns are avoided, if the devastating consequences of climate change are averted and the world stable and controlled of its environmental responsibilities. Most people would assert that it is an impossible thing to do, however, it can also be argued that with current first-rate technology, the goal can undoubtedly be achieved. The rising suggested solution is the replacement of nuclear power as dominating energy source instead of present-day fossil fuels because nuclear supports contemporary lifestyle whilst attaining a sustainable environment. Since the Industrial
I’ve often wondered what benefits humanity could uncover with the application of this technology. Today, however, I plan on ceasing to ask questions so that I can instead answer them for myself. On the counts of recent news, national leaders have gathered in Sweden, such as our president, and have discussed the energy crisis caused by fossil fuels, which not only are resources to be completely depleted within this century, but also are causing atmospheric damage threatening our way of life. I believe that perhaps the answer to this dilemma lies within a forgotten power source such as nuclear energy. If my theory truly is false, at least what I'll be getting out of it is knowing that I'm less ignorant of the topic, which is always a positive thing for knowledge-seekers.