Walker Mitchell's List: WP#2

American Nuclear Society. (2011). Talking Points. Retrieved from http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/nextgen/points.html

This site is a very reliable source because it is a society full of some of the most brilliant scientists who are alive. It gives a lot of cold hard facts concerning the plausibility of nuclear energy powering the entire nation. It talks about how new technology developments allow us to make new power plants faster and cheaper, minimizing any financial concerns many people in the government have towards nuclear power. Nuclear power is also very dependable, as it does not fluctuate with the weather as many of the other alternative energies do. The United States' energy consumption is continually rising, and we need to find something that will continue to provide us with clean energy many, many years down the road.

http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/nextgen/points.html

Clemmitt, M. (2009, July 24). Energy and climate. CQ Researcher, 19, 621-644. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

This source gives a different perspective on my issue, not only does alternative energy affect our budge positively, but the environment as well. This will bring some other types of persuasion into my paper as to why our nation needs to get away from oil. It talks about all of the negative effects that fossil fuels have on the environment and what will happen if we continue on the path that we are on. Through this, she talks about why we need to switch to some other alternative energies, such as nuclear. This will be very helpful when I am trying to persuade a specific audience of my point-of-view. Marcia Clemmitt is a veteran social-policy reporter who previously served as editor in chief of Medicine & Health and staff writer for The Scientist, making her a very reliable source of information.

I could not find this article's PURL or even on Google Scholar.

Clemmitt, M. (2011, June 10). Nuclear power. CQ Researcher, 21, 505-528. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

This is the most recent article I have found concerning my issue, it was written only a month ago! It talks about the nuclear disaster in Japan and it shows the resulting backlash against nuclear energy. She also talks about the development of new types of nuclear reactors as old ones begin to reach the end of their lifespans. She states that many people in the nuclear power industry argue for its safety because there are 104 reactors in the United States, most of them have been operating for over forty years, and they have been largely accident free. This is very important as to the future of nuclear energy especially in the United States. This one was also written by Marcia Clemmitt, who is a very reliable source of information.

I could not find this article's PURL or even on Google Scholar.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Nuclear Energy. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html

It is a very reliable source because it comes from the U.S. government. It is also a good source because it comes from a con perspective whereas most of my sources so far have been pro-nuclear energy. This site shows all of the negative impacts that nuclear energy has on the environment. It talks about how the process of creating energy using nuclear power creates a vast array of different types of pollution. Nuclear energy needs uranium or another radioactive element in order to function, and the only way to obtain this material is through large mines, further affecting the environment negatively. It also brings up the point concerning what is to be done with all of the radioactive waste.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html

McLeish, E. (2007). The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. The Rosen Publishing Group: 2008. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=9DRXkfkQ4gQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nuclear+energy+pros+and+cons&hl=en&ei=x84oTtT7LbLKiALtosCwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20energy%20pros%20and%20cons&f=false

This ebook is one of the more recent books solely on nuclear energy that I have seen yet, being written in 2007. It has many straight up statistics that are up to date. It not only talks about the benefits of nuclear energy, it talks about some of the detrimental effects also, hence the title. It talks about the catastrophe that happened in Ukraine at Chernobyl and the overheated reactor that spread radioactive ash over much of Europe. However, the world gets about one-fifth of its electricity from nuclear power nowadays, with very few accidents in the industry. Some nations get most of their energy from nuclear power, such as France and Lithuania who both get around three-quarters of their electricity from nuclear. It is also published by the Rosen Publishing Group, a well-known organization.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9DRXkfkQ4gQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nuclear+energy+pros+and+cons&hl=en&ei=x84oTtT7LbLKiALtosCwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20energy%20pros%20and%20cons&f=false

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2011). What is Nuclear Energy? Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html

This site is very reliable because it is the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nobody knows more about the everyday facts of nuclear energy than these guys. I learned how nuclear reactors actually harness the power of the atom. They use energy created by fission (atoms splitting apart) to either boil or pressurize water which then turns a turbine, creating a magnetic field which is how we get our electricity. The NRC is responsible for the regulation of all of the nuclear power plants in the United States. They are also in charge of finding ways to store the hazardous materials created by the nuclear reactors.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html

TEDTalksDirector. (2010, June 10). Does the world need nuclear energy? [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic

This video shows a debate between two scholars concerning whether we need nuclear energy. Stewart Brand,one of the founders of the environmental movement, argued for nuclear energy, and Mark Jacobson, a professor at Stanford, argued against nuclear. It is good because it shows two different views on alternative energy. One of the professors argued for nuclear energy and the other argued for solar, wind and water energy. They both had a lot of valid points concerning all of the different types of alternative energy. Mark Jacobson was arguing that we do not nuclear because all of the other types of renewable energies have the potential to provide for our energy needs and we do not need to run the risk of developing nuclear energy. Stewart Brand was arguing that most of the alternative energies besides nuclear are too inconsistent (the sun is not always shining, the wind is not always blowing) to provide for our energy needs. These types of energies are also very dilute in comparison with nuclear power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK8ccWSZkic

Weeks, J. (2011, January 28). Managing nuclear waste. CQ Researcher, 21, 73-96. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

This article goes into a lot of depth into a particular part of nuclear power that has a lot of people worried: the management of the nuclear waste created by the reactors. It is one of the most recent articles I have found on this topic, being published in January of this year, giving it some of the most current information on the topic. Jennifer Weeks talks about how scientists are rethinking the refining process of the materials. She also talks about how the management of the waste will create more jobs, improving the economy as well. Currently, the most promising place to store a majority of the nuclear waste produced in the United States is at the Yucca Mountain complex in the desert of Nevada. Unfortunately, construction of this site has been bogged down by numerous policies and challenges presented by different agencies and commissions.

I'm sorry but I could not find the Permalink anywhere and the article itself was not on GoogleScholar.

Weeks, J. (2006, March 10). Nuclear energy. CQ Researcher, 16, 217-240. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

This is a very comprehensive article on nuclear energy and its place in the American economy. It is from a reliable source and it presents nuclear energy as the cure for the American energy crisis. She talks about the many hurdles that need to be overcome in order to turn nuclear energy into a "more important source of non-polluting energy". Some of these hurdles are lengthy construction times of reactors, difficulty in getting all of the necessary permits, and the problem of what to do with all of the nuclear waste created by the reactors. She also shows that the United States currently has a total of 103 nuclear power plants in 31 different states. There are currently 17 different nuclear reactors under construction or at some point in the application process. This is a very pro-nuclear energy article which will balance out with some of my other articles.

Permalink through Google Scholar: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/65468918