America should expand nuclear energy production.

Closing Argument Americans are growing increasingly concerned about energy, and the growing problems with America"s energy supplies are further complicated by hostile and unfriendly nations which dominates the world oil supply. Coercive regimes, occasionally, employ energy supplies as an economic weapon to harm American interest. Therefore, there are compelling reasons to to augment the domestic energy supply while at the same time reduce the reliance on foreign oil. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy should not be considered one of those options. It is undeniable that nuclear power does offers some advantages over other power sources, but the technology entails a great risk, both financially and environmentally. Without a proper management, nuclear power would gravely threat national security. Often, due to the nature of the technology, government direct intervention is necessary. The subsidy is frequently at the expense of the taxpayers. Companies that are planning new nuclear units are expected to pay a sum between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW nuclear plant. MidAmercian Energy Holding, citing exorbitant cost as the main cause for canceling a proposed nuclear power plant, further reinforces the notion that nuclear energy is not the solution. No private sectors are willing to finance the new power plant, which necessarily leaves the government, therefore the taxpayers to subsidize the nuclear industry. The unsustainable cost alone could sufficiently invalid the policy of building more nuclear power plants. In addition to the prohibitive construction costs, safety issue is also one of the greatest concerns. Chernobyl, Three Island, and Fukushima Diichi plant accidents can happen anytime anyplace. Undoubtedly, the United States would build more advanced nuclear reactors than Japanese ones, the Fukushima tragedy, however, reminds the American people that a well-designed nuclear power plant may still fail catastrophically. Human errors, although greatly reduced, may still occur. In Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 190 tons of highly toxic radioactive materials were expelled into the atmosphere. Even today, millions of people are still hunted by this man-made nightmare. Given the complexity of world situations and increasingly alarming global warming, it is not unreasonable to assume that nuclear disasters may happen again, if not necessary in the United States. The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future. [1] Therefore nuclear energy is not the sole option anymore. There are many alternatives that may serve the national interest while also meet the energy demands. Gulf of Mexico, both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and off the Alaska coast. All these aforementioned places are within the boundary of the United States territory and they also contain an abundant conventional reserves beneath them. [1] The oil explorations entail a great risk to the surrounding environment, government should therefore develop a comprehensive energy policy to prevent the BP oil spill from happening again. In addition to explore and develop the oil reserves, partner with friendly neighbors would also ensure a steady steam of conventional energy supply. Canada and Mexico are home to enormous oil reserves and the United States should work in close partnership with them to develop those resources. [1] Natural gas is another option. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and it should play a bigger role in the national energy supply. [1] Recent discoveries suggest that the United States may have an approximately 100-year supply. [1] Extracting this gas requires a technique called "fracking. " Although the technique is not without risk, the potential benefits greatly overweight the potential environmental concerns. [1] Besides, it is much safety than nuclear technology. Solar and wind power are the future energy source. The existing technology to harvest solar and wind power is not mature, and the efficiency of power sources are constrained by uncontrollable factors. (Continued sunlight for solar power plants and geographic requirements for wind power plants. ) But both powers are alternative to nuclear power. Instead of spending billions of dollars on subsidizing the nuclear industry, government should redistribute the appropriation to fund fundamental research and advanced technology. Jim Talent, former U. S. Senator from Missouri once said that "America has hundreds of years of coal reserves. Recent discovers are making the United States the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas. " [1] Even oil, according to the Senator, is available in much greater quantity. It is estimated that America has domestic reserves of at least twenty billion barrels of oil. [1] With such an abundant natural reserves, America should not risk its own national interest and security to pursue highly dangerous and widely deplored nuclear energy. Americans are growing increasingly concerned about energy. Much of the world"s supply of oil is delivered in a restrictive market dominated by unstable or hostile nations, some of which are using energy as a tool to frustrate U. S. National security and foreign policy objectives. [2][3] Sound national energy policy therefore is central to America"s freedom and prosperity. It is time to debunk the claim that nuclear power is inexpensive and safe energy source and lead government energy policy to move in the right direction. [2][3] Thank you. References [1]. . http://www.boston.com... [2]. . http://www.heritage.org... [3]. . http://www.heritage.org...