• Login
  • Archives
  • Contact Us
The Texas Horn
  • News
  • Opinion
  • History
  • Sports
  • About
  • Join
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
The Texas Horn
  • News
  • Opinion
  • History
  • Sports
  • About
  • Join
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
The Texas Horn
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion

Nuclear Power Holds The Key To America’s Energy Future

Offshore energy is too expensive and environmentally damaging to reliably supply Americans with electricity— which is why we should invest in nuclear energy instead.

Carter Moxley and Jonathan Rollins by Carter Moxley and Jonathan Rollins
8:36 pm, Wednesday, January 11th, 2023
Reading Time: 8 mins read
15
0
Nuclear Power Holds The Key To America’s Energy Future

image via wikipedia

141
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Editor’s note: this is part one of a two part series by the authors on nuclear energy. 

Federal regulations, incentives, and administrative policies currently support the construction, operation, and maintenance of offshore wind farming within the United States Maritime Territory. An offshore wind farm is defined as, “[an offshore] power plant that contains all the facilities needed to capture the wind power, transform it into electricity, and supply it to the main electricity network.” However, offshore wind farming poses a significant risk to the oceanic environment and energy security of the United States. Since the early 2000s, American conflicts in the Middle East revolve around securing fossil fuel resources leading to the expense of eight trillion dollars and 900,000 lives lost. While offshore wind farming might appear as a solution to establishing American energy independence, such renewable energy projects create more negative impacts.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is a U.S. Government institution that leases offshore locations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for energy endeavors. BOEM neglects to comprehend the negative impact of offshore wind farming for sustainable, American fishing companies along the eastern seaboard. A lawsuit filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation against the Biden administration highlights the violation of several federal laws regarding offshore wind farming, including the negative impacts on sustainable fisheries and the oceanic environment. Not only are offshore wind farms immensely expensive, due to both their construction or maintenance costs, they also degrade in effectiveness over time. The average lifespan of wind turbines remains around twenty years, with necessary maintenance every six months, before the machinery ceases to work. 

Offshore wind harms oceanic ecosystems,  weakens American national security, and increases energy poverty. Direct investment and construction of nuclear power systems will solve a majority of issues in traditional forms of renewable energy creation. Nuclear energy both produces 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable energy than wind and solar plants and requires less maintenance for long-term production. Opponents of nuclear power incorrectly focus on a few preventable accidents instead of understanding that nuclear power remains the safest large-scale power source in history. Nuclear power produces less air pollution than traditional energy sources, and decreases the human environmental footprint on the atmosphere. Thus, not only can nuclear energy promote human health and safety, it can also protect the climate for future generations. The Atlantic Council found U.S. nuclear energy will strengthen America’s national security by providing the clean energy necessary for military operations focusing on a net-zero framework. Finally, nuclear energy is generally cheaper than renewables to distribute, which will allow more Americans to benefit from nuclear energy. Overall, the United States ought to divest from offshore wind farms and focus on proven nuclear power technologies to bolster American society and environmental protection.

Internationally, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) reports Australia will present the next opportunity for failure for offshore wind energy products. According to the report, offshore wind developers such as Shell, Orsted, and Equinor have the most interest in developing this wind technology, but Australians might not understand that offshore wind energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy production. The cost of implementing the new energy technology could place the Australian people on a course for increasing energy prices and unreliable energy sources – similar to their other commonwealth counterparts. According to a Reuters report, offshore wind energy projects typically average about eight to ten years for completion. The combination of long construction times, unintended environmental consequences, customer costs, and investor agendas, the story of offshore wind production in Australia renders the outcome of the expansion highly uncertain.

Often, modern neocolonialism takes the form of material extraction and resource production from third-world countries by interested western investment firms. The African Development Bank Group (ADBG) assesses the potential of offshore renewable energy on the African continent; however, the group fails to emphasize those energy gains will not benefit the people of Africa. In Ghana, six offshore wind (wave power) units were deployed, but were later decommissioned because of “suitable positioning” – or a total waste of resources. Such wastes of energy and resources do not begin to complete the picture of how volatile “renewable” energy remains with current technology. The lithium necessary to power the backup batteries for the offshore wind units possesses an issue within itself. Lithium and water are dangerous when mixed and placing those lithium batteries near ocean climates rarely produces “truly safe” situations. 

The fight for renewable energy solutions on part of the liberal movements in western society emphasizes the underlying problem with their methodology. The proponents of offshore wind farming (outside of the investors) value such energy production based on the convenience factor. Renewable energy sources tend to disperse their harmful aspects, particularly out of sight on other continents. The mines in third-world countries which provide lithium for the turbines rarely make the front pages of the news media’s agenda, despite the harsh working conditions faced by the local workforce. Promoting “renewable” energy is convenient when one does not bear witness to the negative impacts of such invasive production methods. In California, Governor Newsom has met little opposition to lithium extraction projects in the Salton Sea region which could disrupt the area’s environmental system. Because of the heavy lithium extraction operations, conveniently outside the public eye, the Salton Sea will potentially disappear— changing the California landscape forever. Offshore wind farm production and use occur off the coast, and once again, outside the view of progressives who champion the technology. It’s easier to boast of the supposed benefits when you do not have to view the production sites. Why do we not place wind turbines near coastlines or in valleys, but instead in the remote places of West Texas or San Gorgonio Pass in California? Because the people who champion wind energy do not want to view the eyesore of wind turbines while they sip an oat milk latte in their “energy-smart” home that a contractor built for the sole purpose of collecting government subsidies. 

The case for nuclear energy is that it remains the sole candidate for real, dense energy production. American citizens stand to gain the largest net benefit for new nuclear energy production projects. In lieu of the present situation of a looming energy crisis similar to Europe, the United State ought to affirm new nuclear energy production contracts at the federal and state level insofar as to increase energy independence. Proponents of nuclear energy do not make a case for nuclear energy replacing petroleum products. Instead, nuclear energy production will balance the scale for reliable energy and the petroleum products necessary for maintaining national operations, in some cases, even global endeavors. The construction of nuclear energy production sites will address the aging infrastructure in the United States and encourage contractors to seek out government bids with a “real” return on investment. Overall, nuclear energy can solidify America’s national security position, provide for energy independence, and make substantial advancements in terms of infrastructure investments (i.e., power grid, roadways, and processing plants). Not only will increased nuclear energy production assist the country’s day-to-day operations, but it will also decrease the burden on the consumer who currently faces steep energy bills in President Biden’s status quo. 

According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power plants are relatively expensive to construct but cheap to run, and are competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Furthermore, the Nuclear Information Center at Duke Energy reports nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy production processes in the United States because it emits no greenhouse gasses, nor does it burn anything or emit smoke into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, offshore windmills do not produce the same amount of energy-dense production over their lifespan. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar. By contrast, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology.” The Nuclear Energy Institute sets this differential of average capacity as evidence in favor of nuclear energy production for long-term returns on investment in this relatively new realm of energy production. The current federal government policy, including the new Inflation Reduction Act, seeks to incentivize the construction of unreliable offshore wind farms with energy investment tax credits of up to 30% if the offshore project begins before January 1, 2026. 

Overall, nuclear energy has significant advantages from societal, national security, climate, cost, and energy production perspectives. In the second part of this two-part series, the authors will discuss the specifics of nuclear energy benefits and address the potential negatives of nuclear energy production. 

Tags: americaclimatechangeenergyenergyindependencefeaturednationalsecuritynuclearpowerpolicyrenewableenergyresponsiblepowerscience
Carter Moxley and Jonathan Rollins

Carter Moxley and Jonathan Rollins

Jonathan “Franky” Rollins is a third-year student at The University of Texas at Austin majoring in Mechanical Engineering and minoring in Geosciences. The Houston native currently works at the UT Austin J.J. Pickle Nuclear Research Facility and aspires to work in nuclear weapon development for the United States at Los Alamos National Laboratory. If Franky is not studying for class, he is working on his vehicles or riding his new motorcycle around the Austin area. At home, Franky enjoys spending time with his family, especially the family Corgi, Archie. Carter Moxley is a third-year student double majoring in Government and Corporate Communications with a minor in Business at The University of Texas at Austin. Off campus, Moxley has completed ten internships ranging from public policy, to government relations, and political communications training. During the 87th Texas Legislative Regular Session, Moxley served as a Clements Scholar at the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute and Undergraduate Fellow at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. For the summer of 2022, Moxley worked in Washington, D.C., with The Fund for American Studies as a Liberty + Learning Fellow and a committee member for the Braver Angels Debate summit. Formerly, Moxley worked as the Energy Policy Intern for the Life:Powered intiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In January 2023, Moxley will report to Texas State Senator Kevin Sparks’ office to take on the role of Legislative Intern and focus on state energy policy. Moxley is also a proud Texas Boys State Counselor during the summer, which functions as a non-partisan camp for high school statemen to learn about the importance of civic participation. In his downtime, you can find Moxley spending time with family and friends, or relaxing with his dog,

Related Posts

The Dangers of Depoliticization and Neutralization
Opinion

The Dangers of Depoliticization and Neutralization

by Efrain Velez
Friday, May 12th, 2023
The Silicon Valley Bank Collapse and the Future of Regional Banks
Opinion

The Silicon Valley Bank Collapse and the Future of Regional Banks

by Kevin Chen
Wednesday, May 10th, 2023
air air pollution chimney clouds
Opinion

Small Modular Reactors and the Future of Energy

by Franky Rollins
Monday, May 8th, 2023

Get The Horn in Your Inbox

Trending Articles

  • Best Joe Biden Quotes

    Best Joe Biden Quotes

    304 shares
    Share 122 Tweet 76
  • Best Kamala Harris Quotes

    407 shares
    Share 163 Tweet 102
  • An Interview with Michael Seifert

    50 shares
    Share 20 Tweet 13
  • The Dangers of Depoliticization and Neutralization

    3 shares
    Share 1 Tweet 1
  • The Dichotomy of “Reject Modernity, Embrace Masculinity”

    17 shares
    Share 7 Tweet 4
  • About
  • Archives
  • Contact
  • Join
  • Login
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 The Texas Horn

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • History
  • Sports
  • Podcast
  • About
  • Archives
  • Contact Us
  • Join Our Team

© 2022 The Texas Horn

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.