Good titles for research papers about nuclear power

US electricity from nuclear power. Global warming Report.

  1. Key topics;
  2. a simple heart essay questions.
  3. essay about homeless children.
  4. argument for euthanasia essays!
  5. dissertation literature review.
  6. You are here?

More than one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close. Safety Report. The U. Security Explainer.

Terrorists pose a real and significant threat to nuclear power plants. Technologies Explainer. At a basic level, nuclear power is the practice of splitting atoms to boil water, turn turbines, and generate electricity. Related resources Video. We're sometimes asked what racial and economic inequality have to do with science. Here's the answer. Nuclear power provides low-carbon electricity, though its long-term role in combatting climate change depends on overcoming economic and safety hurdles. Many of the country's reactors are in trouble.

Most Downloaded Progress in Nuclear Energy Articles - Elsevier

What happens if they close? Ryan April 2, AM. Nathan Howell April 15, PM. I think you make a great point. I know that the authors were not looking at the connection between poverty, energy, and climate aspects, but all of us should be looking at that more.

Nuclear research

If people understood how engineering, industry, and policy choices could be grouped to make a some metric s of poverty as often-toted as Gigatons of carbon then our choices towards peoples' lives from a compassion perspective could be better understood. Our choices have consequence towards poverty, but I think that most people possibly even experts see personal and policy consequences of poverty as so complicated that they just ignore it.

Utility Menu

Even it is hard, I don't think you can afford to ignore it. JoeD July 11, PM. This is not even a coherent statement. Please, do tell us the connection between poverty, energy, and climate aspects that, in your opinion, cause people to be poor - at least that is, I think, what we can take away from your post. The rest of your post is just liberal mumbo-jumbo that means nothing.

If people could understand software programming, Walmart, and people love of cheese could be grouped to make a some metric s of poverty as often-toted as Gigatons of carbon then our choices towards peoples' lives from a hateful perspective could be better understood. Get it? Of course not, it's gibberish.

What I do understand from your post, however, is your need for a governmental authority to tell people how to live their lives as YOU see fit - as YOU see compassion. The problem is, of course, as this article points out but you somehow miss, is that unintended consequences of gov't intervention almost always make things worse because it is the populace who knows nothing about science, economics, or psychology. With politics, however, you don't need to, you vote for the clown you like best, who says the things that you think are true like nuclear power being "bad" and they make policies that limit the use of nuclear power which in turn kills more people than if nuclear power was CHOSEN by the market.

The difference between politics and the market are that in the market people have real choice, so the "wisdom of the crowd" dictates that people do not need to be well educated to move markets in positive directions.

Climate Change

Politics is the opposite - there is little to no choice and while people vote in a market every day, it takes a very long time to get rid of incumbents. If the market had been left alone, free from gov't intervention and special interests who distort the market and turn it into a cesspool of corruption and special favors for the politically connected, we'd have had nuclear power LONG ago and we'd have cleaner air. We might not even be in the middle east!!!! And then, maybe, our terrorist problems would be gone, or at least squashed to a minimum.

But no - thanks to gov't regulations and special favors we remain addicted to oil and coal. This country got rich not through gov't, and NOT through gov't regulation but by free people pursuing their own interests, free of gov't coercion. Free of protectionism for the most part and free from absurd laws that stifle innovation and creativity and motivation.

But you would have more of that, more "policy" from our great overseers.

  1. alzheimers disease not just loss of memory research paper.
  2. another term for white paper.
  3. summary beka lamb essay?
  4. dissertation abstrats international.

You would drive this country into the poor house with your compassion. Compassion that leads to policies like welfare that keeps voters dependent on the state instead of self sufficient. So it is your assertion that it is better to be dead than poor? I have no idea what you think the direct connection is between keeping people alive and being poor unless it is you unfounded conclusion that the more people we have the more people will be poor.

This is patently absurd and has been shown to be absurd on numerous occasions. By your logic Americans, by the tens of millions, should be dirt poor. But alas, they are not. There is plenty of research and evidence in direct contradiction to this idea that of course has been spewed forth by "intellectuals" for decades, if not centuries, and they have always been shown to be dead wrong. George April 2, AM. What about Hydro power I'd say it wins hands down. This study is fundamentally flawed in my opininon because it is making a comparison of two evils and chosing the lesser of them Glen April 4, PM.

Hydro-electric power is bad for the environment because of how it disrupts fish habitat. It has other problems as well. It also drowns out vast acreage and endangers those downstream with flooding. And more important, all the good spaces are used up, mostly.

Jeremiah Brunkala May 4, PM. Wrong, daming actually decreases the chances of flooding. That was actually one of the original reasons for daming. Lee Thonus August 23, AM. Most hydro-electric dams do not serve a flood control purpose. Most flood control dams do not produce electricity. When a hydro dam fails, the results are much more catastrophic than "normal" flooding from excess rainfall, which happens gradually and can be predicted and responded to.

  1. Most Cited Progress in Nuclear Energy Articles.
  3. Nuclear reactor - Wikipedia.
  4. Aeon for Friends.
  5. Nuclear power is not the answer in a time of climate change | Aeon Ideas.
  6. 1949 1999 domestic essay in macroeconomics.
  7. Nuclear Power Essay | Bartleby.

Ask the folk in Johnstown. PA about the floods cause by dam failures. No warning, thousands of people killed in hours as the wall of water headed downstream. Hayley Dunning April 5, AM. The problem is hydro is not everywhere, not completely reliable and essentially cannot, at present, take on our energy consumption. To do that, many many more dams would have o be built, which comes with their own consequences i. Of course, any energy solution comes with it's own issues e. Well, that's a little tangent, but the point is hydro cannot pick up the slack right now. So we need a transition fuel - something to use instead of fossil fuels while we wait for renewables to be good enough.

Nuclear is likely the best transition fuel we have right now - at least in terms of greenhouse gases, that is. Johnathon April 9, AM. In theory the world needs approximately The risks with nuclear can only be removed by doing it other wise everything else is speculation. Chris Miller April 20, PM. Disposal wise i know universities and research groups around the world are searching for an answer" Actually, one disposal solution is fourth-generation nuclear.

Remember that nearly all nuclear plants around are second-generation nuclear technology, which is relatively inefficient in converting fuel to energy, leaving large amounts of still radioactive byproducts as waste. A third generation includes reactors that use not uranium but thorium, resulting in far less in radioactive actinides left over. Breeder reactors are actually designed, first of all, to be inherently safe: a failure automatically shuts down the reaction: the design makes a "meltdown" impossible.

More importantly, they are designed to recycle fuel, including any nuclear waste from earlier technologies. And when as much energy as possible has been wrung out of the fuel, what is left over has a half life not of millennia, but mere decades. And unlike the admittedly small danger of plutonium being stolen to make thermonuclear bombs or dirty bombs, the design of fourth generation reactors makes this impossible, and the waste itself is useless for any such purpose.

So the solution to one problem falls naturally out of the solution to another. Unimportant January 18, AM. In terms of waste, and many of the other problems with nuclear energy, I believe will be shoved with the advent of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. This reactor is uses Thorium - a material currently disposed of by mining companies as waste and three times more abundant that uranium, most of which cannot be used for nuclear energy anyways - and uses it as a fuel.

The thorium is dissolved into a liquid salt solution and 'breeded' into uranium. This uranium then reacts and is split. The biggest advantage of this system is that the fuel is contained in a liquid form, and so it does not need to be removed before it is completely used up, as current reactors have to because if they don't, the fuel rods may crack and release radiation.