Life in the twenty first century is heavily reliant on power; there is no denying this. Just about everything involved in a person’s daily life requires power, whether it be smartphones, televisions, computers, or even things as simple as lights, and the gas in a car. All of these things require some form of energy to power them so that they can be available for use throughout daily life. However, there is a massive debate over the methods that should be used to generate this power. Some believe that we should just continue to use fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, to power everything needed. Others believe that more resources need to be dedicated to improving renewable energy sources, like wind and solar energy, to help take care of the environment. Then there is the third option of nuclear energy, a fairly new source, but one that is very reliable. Despite each source being able to stand alone, choosing just one of these energy sources is not the way to go. In order to develop the best energy system for the environment and the consumer, all three sources must be included and play a key role in the system.

When it comes to modern day energy, much of it comes from fossil fuels. In fact, the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels is somewhere around 80%, according to Barry Brook. (Key Role). This is because fossil fuels are abundant, and extremely reliable. Unlike renewable energy sources, fossil fuels do not require specific environmental conditions to work, and fossil fuels are powerful enough alone to provide the energy to power the whole United States. Also, energy plants that run on fossil fuels can be shut down, or started back up much quicker than the other options. Fossil fuels also produce a large amount of energy when burned. This efficiency allows power companies to charge a lower price for their energy, which helps keep the consumers happy. A large portion of the energy produced by fossil fuels comes from the gasoline burned in combustion engines, such as cars, lawnmowers, and even airplanes. This portion of fossil fuel energy is a major part of modern day society, and while alternatives are being developed, they often come with a hefty price tag, and create a less efficient fuel.  However, dedicating such a large amount of energy production to fossil fuels has had a major impact on the environment. The greenhouse gasses produced when these fossil fuels are burned have damaged the earth’s atmosphere, causing climate change to occur worldwide. This environmental impact is most easily seen in major industrial cities due of the thick layer of smog that often hovers over these cities. This smog is not only dangerous for the environment, but it is also extremely unhealthy for the people living in these areas. Fossil fuels are also a nonrenewable form of energy, meaning the supply will eventually run out completely. While some fossil fuels, such as natural gas, have less of an impact on the environment than burning coal or oil, there is still a carbon footprint being left.

For those that believe saving the environment should have priority over cheap and reliable energy, renewable energy sources are their preference. These sources have no impact on the environment at all, other than taking up land for the solar and wind farms, and the power plants themselves. Wind and solar energy are good on a small scale, which can be seen on homes that have solar panels installed on the roof. When done on a small scale, enough energy can be made to keep everything up and running, and because the government subsidizes renewable energy sources, and the cost is fairly cheap. Multiple success stories of small scale renewable energy plants are laid out in Robert Kunzig’s article titled, “Germany Could Be a Model for How We’ll Get Power in the Future”. In this article, Kunzig tells the story of Hans-Josef Fell who, back in 1993, organized an association of investors who helped build a 15 kilowatt solar plant for their town. His plan was successful, and actually led to the creation of hundreds of other small solar plants designed to help keep towns off of nuclear energy. Due to plans such as this, Germany has actually developed a nationwide plan to try and cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. However, this plan may not be possible because, these renewable energy sources need weather conditions to be just right for the proper amount of energy to be produced. For example, if a home dependent on solar power experience a week of cloudy weather, no solar energy could be produced. This would cause the home to have to find a backup source of energy, which would most likely be power from a plant run on fossil fuels, or pull energy stored in a backup battery if one is available. On a larger scale, solar and wind farms require a lot of resources to be built, including needing a large amount of land to be able to farm energy. Despite this it has been stated that, “economists predict the U.S. can build a 100% renewable energy system at costs comparable to or less than what the country would have to spend to continue its reliance on dirty energy” (Bebon). Even with costs of the system decreasing, these large farms, like their smaller counterparts, need perfect weather conditions to generate energy. This unreliability leads to increased costs for the companies, and the consumers. In fact, some companies actually lose money when trying to provide renewable energy sources. On the plus side, creating these renewable energy plants and farms takes a lot of man power, which means more jobs for those living in the area. After they are built, more jobs open up for service and repairs to these energy farms.

While much of the energy debate revolves around fossil fuels versus renewable energy sources, there is a third option that is just as strong of a contender. Nuclear energy is relatively new, having been discovered around the time of World War II. Due to nuclear energy, and nuclear fission in general, being a such a new concept to the world, many people reject it purely off of a lack of knowledge. Michael Shellenberger’s TED talk actually touches on many of the misconceptions people have about nuclear energy, in his argument for the increase of nuclear power plants nationwide. In it he argues that many of nuclear energy’s opponents fear nuclear energy because they believe it is dangerous, can lead to the formation of nuclear weapons, and produce large amounts of waste that cannot be dealt with properly. He refutes all of these claims throughout his talk. First, he states that nuclear energy is actually very safe, and that it has less deaths per year than coal, oil, and natural gas. Also, these power plants are actually incapable of creating nuclear weapons, but instead can use the radioactive material inside of already made nuclear weapons to generate energy. This process actually helps remove the number of nuclear weapons in the world, as opposed to the common misconception that nuclear energy leads to the increase of these weapons. However, while Shellenberger does state that nuclear energy creates minimal waste, the opposition is still right about the fact that no one knows what to do with all of this radioactive material left over. There have been plans put forth to research and develop a new types of nuclear reactor, one that would actually run on the waste created by the current type of reactor. As of now though, no one has been able to figure out a way for this to work. Other reactors are also being developed that produce even less waste than the current ones. Another problem with nuclear reactors is that, while nuclear energy does have a very low number of deaths per year, when a reactor does melt down, the physical and environmental damage is enormous. The most obvious examples of this are Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011). Both of these disasters led to a large amount of radioactive material entering the environment. In fact, Chernobyl is actually still radioactive to this day, and the land destroyed by the disaster may never recover. These nuclear disasters don’t just effect the surrounding areas, however; the radioactive material can actually spread hundreds of miles affecting an extremely large area. Advancements are being made to make nuclear energy much safer though. The new generation IV reactors being developed now has a much more failsafe engineering system than the current reactors. This will help keep the number of nuclear disasters down, or possibly even eliminate them for good. When these disasters are avoided though, nuclear energy is a highly effective, and affordable form of energy. 

All in all, each of these energy sources have strong qualities that they bring to the table, but there would not be an energy debate if they also did not come with some major baggage. For this reason, governments should be investing their resources on perfecting their energy systems, not trying to find the one super source to be used throughout. This system would have to be able to provide the citizens with cheap, reliable energy, but also make it environmentally conscious. While this may sound impossible, there may already be a way for this to be done.

In order to bring people cheap energy at all times, renewable sources should not be the primary focus of this energy system. Their unreliability in poor weather conditions would cost power companies too much when trying to compensate for their poor performance, making energy prices even higher for the customer. This instability causes power companies to have to balance the energy output because of the fluctuation coming from renewable resources’ energy output. This adds additional costs that companies must cover, that have been estimated to be ranging from €300 million up to €600 million according to Meier et al. To keep energy effective, cheap, and still mostly environmentally conscious, this energy system should rely primarily on nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants provide the effectiveness and reliability needed to be the primary source powering a nation, and only have a major effects on the environment when they fail. With advancements of technology looking at recycling the waste, these nuclear reactors could become even better for the environment, as there would be no indispensable waste left over after energy production. Nuclear power plants also require less land than solar and find warms need, leaving more unused land untouched, which helps keep the ecosystems alive. Nuclear energy brings together the cheap costs and overall effectiveness of fossil fuels, and pairs it with an environmental impact that is almost as small as the renewable energy sources. In fact, in Barry Brook and Corey Bradshaw’s journal entry, “Key Role for Nuclear Energy in Global Biodiversity Conservation”, they compare three plans for energy systems, one heavily favoring fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil. The next system was one strongly favoring the renewable sources of solar and wind power. The last system was heavily reliant on nuclear energy. In another model they present, they display the environmental impact each system would have in terms of land used, and the overall climate increase caused by each energy system, as well as the total cost of these systems. Their models show that while a system heavily dependent on nuclear energy would cost about 1 trillion dollars more than the source focused on fossil fuels, it would still be about two trillion dollars less than an energy system dependent on renewable sources. However, this nuclear heavy system really separates itself from the other two due to the fact that it uses the least amount of land out of the three, and also has the smallest amount of carbon emissions out of the three. 

Despite this energy system being heavily dependent on nuclear energy production, there is still a role for each of the other two types of energy. As of now fossil fuels look like they will continue to dominate transportation, as there is no way to power a personal vehicle off nuclear energy developed yet. Even if cars could be powered by small nuclear reactors, this would be highly dangerous, as car wrecks would go from leaving oil all over the roads to leaving radioactive materials and waste everywhere. While cars have been developed that do not have to burn gasoline, such as electric cars, and solar cars are being researched, many people still do not have these vehicles, and most likely will not any time soon, leaving a significant role for gasoline in the energy system. Governments could continue to promote carpooling, or other forms of clean transportation to help the environment. With the money this system saves, government incentives could be given out to those that prove they are doing their part in reducing the carbon emissions created from automobiles. Another way to slowly reduce dependency on fossil fuels would be for national, or statewide governments to also look into building networks of maglev (magnetic levitation) trains for long distance travel This would help eliminate the need for highways because these trains are incredibly fast, and they have no effect on the environment because they run off of magnets and energy. 

When it comes to renewable energy sources, there is still a bit more work to do before they can challenge nuclear energy for the top spot. However, like fossil fuels, renewable energy sources still have a role to play in this ideal energy system. Solar and wind power are still quite effective on a small scale, which would allow individual homes or small communities to be able to adopt their own small solar plant. This has proven to be successful throughout Germany, as was mentioned earlier. Due to renewable energy sources being the cleanest forms of energy, efforts do need to be made to expand their potential on the larger scale. Governments should continue to fund research for these sources in hopes of finding a replacement all together for fossil fuels. This must happen in order to reduce climate change worldwide, and avoid the global warming disaster currently looming. Also, if the effectiveness of renewable energy sources can be improved to the point that it is up to standards with the other two types of energy, renewable sources could also replace nuclear energy. If this is done, then civilians will no longer have to worry about a natural disaster causing damage to a nuclear reactor leading to massive amounts of damage, like Fukushima. Renewable energy sources also do not produce waste like nuclear reactors do, so improving them over time could help them replace nuclear power one day as the primary source, especially if the reactors that run off waste prove to be impossible.

When it comes to the great energy debate, there will never be one true answer supported by everyone. People’s values differ greatly, and what may be one person’s priority number one, will be the last thing on someone else’s mind. Nevertheless, the energy system introduced in this essay should be one accepted by many people. This system takes into account the cost for the everyday person paying a power bill, and the overall health of the planet we live on. The plan for this energy system to move off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and slowly work toward renewable sources replacing nuclear energy is very important. This will provide the cleanest and safest form of energy available right now, which is very important for the planet and the ecosystems throughout that are currently in danger. Up until that point though, nuclear energy does provide good energy for the world at a low price, with a minimal chance for environmental damage. For all that, the current plan laid out is the best combination of economic and environmental consideration.
