Enter your username and password below

Not registered yet?   Forgotten your password?

Sustainable City

Here's your chance not just to be the mayor, but the original city planner as well! Imagine a medium sized city that would be developed with modern, low carbon transportation in mind, and other strategies to reduce the average citizens' carbon footprints.

What would that city look like? Would that make you more likely to want to live there?

Sustainable City >

Nuclear Power As a Sustainable Energy Source


Most people when they hear about nuclear fusion as a power source they associate it with being dangerous and especially bad for the environment. What most people don't realize is just how efficient and environmentally friendly nuclear power actually is. Yes, you heard that right. As ridiculous as it sounds, nuclear power plants actually produce no carbon dioxide, the leading gas that contributes to the atmosphere. According to energysage.com, energy.gov, and various other sources, nuclear power is actually extremely efficient. One uranium pellet that is less than one inch can produce as much energy as one ton of coal, and 120 barrels of oil. The following quote is from energysage.com, the website I cited earlier. "According to the Department of Energy, a typical nuclear facility producing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity takes up about one square mile of space. Comparatively, a wind farm producing the same amount of energy takes 360x more land area, and a large-scale solar farm uses 75x more space. That’s 431 wind turbines or 3.125 million (!!!) solar panels." This quote alone showcases the true efficiency of nuclear power. Sadly, as you would expect, (since it is so efficient and yet not the leading source of energy) it has as many pros as it does cons. Again, according to energysage.com, nuclear reactors are powered by uranium, which is technically not renderable. This is because uranium is an element found in the earth's crust, and therefore it is limited, of course. It also takes energy to mine it, therefore having negative effects as well. Since it is powered by uranium, it produces nuclear waste, as you would expect. This waste is highly radioactive, which means it takes a lot of money to package it safely away. Again, as you would expect, it is also very dangerous. Finally, to add onto the money problem, while nuclear reactors don't take much money to run while they are already built, building them is a whole other story; very expensive. In conclusion, nuclear reactors would probably be one of the best solutions to this energy crisis without these cons. One day, if we manage to find a safer, more renewable and yet just as efficient energy source for these reactors, it may be just the solution we are looking for.

Alden M

In addition, carbon emissions actually cause more deaths than nuclear reactors. Though, yes, some people have died from meltdowns, have suffered cancer among other things, more people have suffered through pollutants, lung diseases, and similar horrible effects.


But sadly the reason people don't trust it, is because the deaths caused by nuclear reactors are much more directly visible than carbon emissions.

3 posts
You must be logged in in order to post.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2018-2019 I2SEA, all rights reserved.