Difference between revisions of "Nuclear Energy"
m (I thought it nescessary to introduce the controversy due to liberal activists and politicians wanting just renewable eneryg vs. cooperation and competition.) |
m (needed to make some formatting edits .) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Controversy== | ==Controversy== | ||
| − | An environmentalist | + | An environmentalist's ideal energy is one that emits no greenhouse gasses and is efficient. Nuclear energy is not only competitive with coal energy, but by an environmentalists standards, "cleaner." So why then, do "environmentalists" who claim they are for these two goals want America to just have inefficient solar panels and wind turbines, but have little problem with Iran, the country with arguably the most oil, obtaining nuclear power? The answer is because of a leftist agenda. They want to pass [[cap and trade]] which limits green house gas emissions. In short, it is a massive energy tax<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html</ref>. For those who still buy into the anthropogenic global warming lies, this is a dream come true. The bottom line controversy is this: Environmentalists claim that they want the cleanest, most efficient energy source, but despise domestic nuclear energy use while at the same time ardently support Iran obtaining nuclear energy. This negates any validity they had towards nuclear energy being unsafe. H.R. 391 <ref>http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h391/show</ref> would amend the Clean Air Act of 1963 <ref>http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/</ref> to not allow congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This would make the energy industry more competitive. As all free market economists know, the product of competition is lower prices at better quality, ultimately benefiting the American people the most. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film [[Spiderman 2]]. | A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film [[Spiderman 2]]. | ||
Revision as of 22:41, December 7, 2009
Nuclear energy is energy gained from the destruction of subatomic particles during nuclear fission or fusion. The main uses of nuclear technology is in nuclear reactors, which use the energy in an atom to create power, or nuclear weapons, which use the energy in warfare. There are two types of reactions, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
Theory
The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation <math>E= MC</math>2. Spelled out, mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This equation is the formula for the energy contained in an atom. This energy is released in a nuclear weapon when a speeding neutron collides with the atom, blasting it apart, and releasing the binding energy of the atom. In a nuclear weapon, the atom blasted apart then releases other neutrons which collide with other atoms. This keeps occurring until there are no atoms left to destroy. This is known as a nuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear fission power plant, however, the nuclear core is designed so that a runaway chain reaction cannot occur, by limiting the number of neutrons available to continue the reaction by the use of control rods[1].
Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is based on putting atoms together, as opposed to breaking them apart in fission, heavier atoms often require less bonding energy than the combined original binding energies of the fusing lighter atoms.
Weapon
A nuclear weapon is a weapon designed with a nuclear warhead. Nuclear weapons not only produce mass devastation in the blast radius, but also create a nuclear fallout for many years to come. Recently, there has been much fear of a terrorist state or organization getting hold of either a Soviet weapon or creating one of their own.
Nuclear fission based weapons occur by the nuclear chain reaction system, while thermonuclear weapons create nuclear fusion in their reaction.
Power
Nuclear fission has existed for power over fifty years, starting with the Manhattan Project. It currently supplies electricity to many of the nations of the world. The nuclear industry was booming in the 1960's and 1970's, but political opposition stopped nuclear construction in the USA. There is talk of renewing construction because it is the cleanest and cheapest source of large quantities of power, it doesn't depend on Mideast oil, and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
Nuclear fusion has been sought vigorously as a clean energy source, but the end result in every try has been less energy resulting in the reaction than was put into it. Nevertheless, several countries still invest heavily in nuclear fusion energy programs in the hope that someday they may become viable.
Controversy
An environmentalist's ideal energy is one that emits no greenhouse gasses and is efficient. Nuclear energy is not only competitive with coal energy, but by an environmentalists standards, "cleaner." So why then, do "environmentalists" who claim they are for these two goals want America to just have inefficient solar panels and wind turbines, but have little problem with Iran, the country with arguably the most oil, obtaining nuclear power? The answer is because of a leftist agenda. They want to pass cap and trade which limits green house gas emissions. In short, it is a massive energy tax[2]. For those who still buy into the anthropogenic global warming lies, this is a dream come true. The bottom line controversy is this: Environmentalists claim that they want the cleanest, most efficient energy source, but despise domestic nuclear energy use while at the same time ardently support Iran obtaining nuclear energy. This negates any validity they had towards nuclear energy being unsafe. H.R. 391 [3] would amend the Clean Air Act of 1963 [4] to not allow congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This would make the energy industry more competitive. As all free market economists know, the product of competition is lower prices at better quality, ultimately benefiting the American people the most.
A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film Spiderman 2.