# Nuclear power greener/A Critique Of On the casual dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.

(Review Paper) Cited in Nuclear power greener/A Critique Of On the casual dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.

### Points Made

The rapid consumption of expensive fossil fuels emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. These emissions may account for alarming hazardous climate changes on Earth in which nuclear energy may be the answer to a more desirable outcome. Nuclear energy has a low carbon dioxide output, is a renewable energy source, and offers the opportunity for economic growth.

### Methods

Twenty countries are a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which took part in a dynamics study monitoring carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear and renewable energy consumption, and economic growth from 1984–2007 using a panel error correction model (complicated mathematical algorithms that monitor variable changes over a given time). These panels aid not only in the observation of shared economic and financial problems of OECD countries, but also energy emissions, consumption, and real output. The results produced by these mathematical formulas used by the models are stack and then related to one another in a criss-cross correlating fashion. This allows the panels to compare the countries as well as perceive change. These panels indicate nuclear energy consumption decreases carbon dioxide emissions. It is also noted that although all renewable energy sources have a positive impact when it comes to emissions, nuclear energy consumption has more of a positive impact on the economy than any other renewable resource. So in turn nuclear energy not only reduces emissions and helps the economy, but also is a plays a part in energy security in the fact it is renewable as opposed to fossil fuels which are not.

### Results

Based on the panel error correction model there is significant positive relationships between nuclear energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emissions. This supports nuclear energy to be the more favorable renewable energy source as opposed to others. The heterogeneous panel error correction model can be used by many countries to establish a method to best meet the needs of the economy in the best environmentally responsible way possible. The panel proves that the best long-term solution is the production and consumption of nuclear energy. Not only does nuclear energy not put off as much carbon dioxide but the consumption of nuclear energy actually reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The panel showed that carbon dioxide emissions were lowered by 0.477% when nuclear energy consumption was raised by 1%
    Nuclear power may decrease the carbon dioxide emissions, but what is the risk that is associated with generating this type of toxins for consumption. I must agree that finding new environmentally friendly ways of reducing toxins is important; however, the risk associated with nuclear energy are extremely high. One meltdown or nuclear leak could create catastrophic effects for local populations or the world as a whole - i.e. Japan in 2011. There were many benefits for the plants in Japan, but when there was a shift in weather conditions and the plant was disrupted it created a potential for negative effects to the worlds water supply. So the question that should be further investigated would be do the benefits of nuclear power out way the risks associated with producing it? Swats376 (talk)9:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC).