In his address on Tuesday Fmr. Governor Allen expressed his thoughts on energy reform. His address focused on utilizing nuclear and coal technology to wean American society off of oil while noting the impracticality of using wind or solar technology as primary sources of alternative energy. First off, I commend Mr. Allen for addressing energy reform as it is a pertinent issue facing the United States and the International community. After all, since oil is a finite resource, continuing to enable our addiction to the substance would be extremely reckless and imprudent. I even agree with him on his evaluation on the effectiveness of solar and wind technology. These two energy sources will play pivotal roles in diversifying U.S. energy consumption, but they will not be able to solve our energy problems alone. Now, I disagree with Mr. Allen's assessment that coal and nuclear technologies are the most legitimate solutions to the U.S. energy predicament. I disagree with his assessment not because these technologies lack the ability to produce the energy necessary to meet U.S. demand, but because it overlooks the difficulty and impact of implementing these techniques\nWith the largest coal reserves in the world, there is no doubt that the United States has the ability to produce the energy needed to meet its growing demand. Unfortunately increasing America's dependency on coal raises important environmental questions, specifically its impact on global warming. Given that scientists have been unable to develop a method to use/burn coal without producing the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, do we really want to use an energy source that will only continue to deteriorate our environment and provide an additional problem for future generations? But for arguments sake, let's assume that concerns about global warming are invalid; a 2006 study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted that there is only enough coal to last another 60 years after taking into account annual increases in coal consumption and growth rate. While there is no guarantee that the EIA's predictions are 100% correct, since coal is also a finite it leaves us with the same problem that we are currently facing with oil. Therefore, shifting U.S. consumption to coal would only kick the "energy" can down the road for us to solve later.
Although nuclear energy does not pose the same threat to the environment that coal does, nor is it as finite of a resource, it would still be difficult to implement nuclear energy as a primary energy source given the history of nuclear power plants. Despite the fact that several European countries have developed and perfected methods of using nuclear energy and handling the undesired radioactive waste (especially the French), most Americans are still skeptical about its potential. Much of this skepticism is a result of Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster. These two incidents have fostered a NIMB (Not In My Backyard) mindset in the U.S. which has made it difficult to initiate the creation of new and efficient nuclear power plants.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | December 27, 2024Standardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | December 23, 2024Addiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
