This means shifting energy production toward renewable sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The consensus among scientists is that, among other solutions, the world must release less CO 2 during energy production. The more CO 2 we release, the more our climate changes. But burning these fuels releases CO 2 into the air. Most energy production comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Global climate change, however, which is largely driven by how we produce energy, might motivate countries to invest more in low-carbon energy. Additionally, most countries that use nuclear power still don’t have long-term plans for dealing with the radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, many of the existing plants are old and near the end of their useful lives. Also, building new nuclear plants can take decades. The electricity produced by these plants costs $112 to $189 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared with $36 to $44 per MWh for solar. In addition to the public’s wariness over nuclear accidents, nuclear power plants are very expensive. Having fallen out of favor in some countries, the total amount of electricity generated by nuclear plants has dropped from a high of 18% of the worldwide total in the mid-1990s to only 10% today. How nuclear energy will fit into the future energy mix is unclear. And some researchers have estimated that living in a large polluted city can be more harmful to a person’s health than working as a Chernobyl clean-up worker. Statistics show that nuclear power is safer than coal power plants in terms of deaths per unit of electricity generated. Many experts, however, will point out that although nuclear accidents are indeed dangerous, they have resulted in fewer deaths than other energy-related disasters, including explosions at coal mines and oil refineries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |