U.S. Nuclear Energy Policy in Term Paper

" (Alvarez, 2008) Alvarez states that upon investigation it has been found as follows:

GNEP is a rush, ill-conceived, poorly supported and technically and economically risky expansion and redirection of the nuclear industry;

Even if the unproven technologies are shown to be viable, GNEP also has the potential to inhibit the adoption of more reasonable solutions to global climate change by diverting resources into an unproven and, most likely, a prohibitively expensive nuclear option;

GNEP also would increase the danger of nuclear proliferation and the potential for weapons grade materials falling into the hands of hostile or unstable nations and terrorist groups; and GNEP will likely worsen the radioactive waste disposal problem and would also make the United States the dumping ground for nuclear wastes from the other participating nations. (Alvarez, 2008)

IV. CLEAN ENERGY TRENDS NOTED

The work of Makower, Pernick and Wilder entitled: "Clean Energy Trends 2008" states that "amid a challenging economic outlook - plummeting housing prices, rising foreclosure rates, record-high oil prices, sinking consumer confidence, looming recession- 2007 was another banner year for clean energy, with no signs of a slowdown in 2008. Solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, energy intelligence, hybrid- and all-electric vehicles, advanced batteries, green buildings, and other clean-energy..." all served to brighten an economy with few bright areas. The following figure shows the Global Clean-Energy project growth for years 2007-2017 as cited in this report.

Global Clean-Energy Projected Growth 2007-2017

Source: Makower, Pernick and Wilder (2008)

Global investments in clean energy in 2007 are stated by Makower, Pernick and Wilder to have totaled approximately $148.4 billion including government R&D at $7.1 billion; corporate R&D and $9.8 billion as well as other investments including asset financing at $79.2 billion. (2008) a report entitled: "Nuclear Facts" relates that "new nuclear power plants are unlikely to provide a significant fraction of future U.S. needs for low-carbon energy." (2008) it is stated however, that nuclear plants already in existence "can compete favorably with fossil-fuel plants because they have relatively low operation, maintenance and fuel costs, and their excessive capital costs have long since been forcibly absorbed by ratepayers and bondholders." (Nuclear Facts, 2008) This report also relates the fact that expanding faster than nuclear power initiatives are renewable energy technologies.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSION

As noted in this report the initiatives of clean and green energy provision has been at focus and is predicted to remain at focus even more so than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy policies, as noted in this research study, have extremely weak directions and regulations regarding nuclear energy use especially as it relates to developing countries. It is certain that the United States must necessarily, and is in the process of the design and development of alternative sources of energy for the future. The focus of the present administration has been noted in this study to be upon development of new nuclear weapons rather than promoting nuclear power plant energy.

Bibliography

Annual Energy Outlook 2008 Energy Information Administration. December 2007. Online available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html

Alvarez, Robert (2008) Risky Appropriations: Gambling U.S. Energy Policy on the global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Nuclear Policy. 31 Mar 2008. Online available at http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/

Makower, Joel; Pernick, Ron; and Wilder, Clint (2008) Clean Energy Trends 2008. Clean Edge Technology Corporation.

Nuclear Facts (2008) New Nuclear Power Plants. Online available at: www.nrdc.org/policy.

Potter, William C. (2008) Trends in U.S. Nuclear Policy. Spring 2005. In collaboration with the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Security Studies Department. Located online available at: www.ifri.org.

Trends….....