Literature Survey: Energy Policy

Essay, Pages 7 (1534 words)

Views

6300

Abstract

This literature looks at two examples of secondary analysis into energy policy, with a document of main issues: providing all global energy with wind, water and solar energy and solution for sustainability and climate protection. In spite of the fact, that their main focus differs from one another, they share numerous thematic similarities. In the first part, the main ideas are provided and after that each articles are compared and evaluated where each articles highlight the possible solutions to energy policy.

Don’t waste time

Get a verified writer to help you with Literature Survey: Energy Policy

Hire writer

$35.80 for a 2-page paper

Introduction

The objective of this survey is to review two research literature texts and judge a secondary research on the topic of energy policy. Article one provides a solution for sustainability and climate protection by Lutz Mez, which mainly describes global scenarios and national programmers and analyses within the nuclear industry. The authors stress the growing energy wants and forestall the worst consequences of climate change for that the world may have to extend the supply of nuclear power.

Article two talks about providing all recent energy with WWS (wind, water and solar power) by 2030 and replacing the previous energy by 2050. This article commend energy value in a WWS ought to be similar. Jacobson evaluated various endless energy systems according to environmental and other criteria, and found WWS systems to be imperative to nuclear, fossil-fuel, and bio fuel systems. Both articles seek resolution of energy policy by suggesting the possible solution for the nuclear industry.

Summary of Lutz Mez

The main thesis of paper is that whereas the purportedly low prices of atomic energy were extolled in the early phase of civil use of nuclear power ‘too low to meter’ was the jingle the claim has in the meantime been modified to ‘at least cheaper than the alternatives.

’ The article surveys increase and stagnation of nuclear power and reassesses the indicated worldwide atomic renaissance. The article questions illustrate a ‘simple’ strategy: will nuclear energy really contribute a sustainable solution for global energy supply and offer a technology to mitigate global warming for the next generation?
In the introductory section the authors stress that to meet the growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change; the world may need to increase the supply of nuclear power.
In the second section, he doesn’t really say that there is a need to revive nuclear power but this has not happened even though it was expected.
In the third section the author confirms that Italy, Kazakhsthan and Lithuania have closed down their nuclear plant, whereas in Austria a reactor was built however, it was never connected to the grid therefore in many parts of the world nuclear energy is not expanding.
In the next section, the author assume that operating lifetime of 95 reactors will be taken off the grid by 2015 and another 192 by 2025, which is a total of 287 reactors. These would have to be supplanted by unused reactors by 2025 in order to keep the installed rating of nuclear power plants in the world constant.
In section five, he explains that in the USA and other Western industrialized countries, there will be a real construction boom for nuclear energy plants globally to install nuclear power plant output in 2020. The authors affirm that many of the current expectations for nuclear power were ‘‘overly ambitious.’’ Even the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s trade organization, stated in August 2008 that ‘‘there is going to be significant uncertainty about the capital cost of new nuclear generating capacity”.
In the next section, he assumed that total nuclear power would get replaced by coal plants. He adds in the coming decades, indirect carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants will increase significantly because more fossil energy will have to be used to mine metal.
The authors go on to acknowledge that nuclear power plants also contribute to climate change by transmitting radioactive isotopes like tritium or carbon 14. However, a turnaround in energy policy can build larger use of renewable energy and decentralized gas fired combined heat and power plants that do not cause any more carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear power plants.\nIn the next section he describes civil and military use of nuclear power–proliferation viewed in historical terms. He explains the use of nuclear energy has gone hand in hand with the advancement of civil nuclear technology, because most countries attached first priority to the development of nuclear weapons and other military uses.
The final section deals with nuclear power stations placed in international energy policy at a crossroads which can have a paradigm-shifting impact on the long run of nuclear energy. The author acknowledges that global expansion of nuclear energy remains impressively slower than its own targets and desires. He describes the rationale behind nuclear power being not materialized are lack of industrial production capacities, shortages of technical specialist within the nuclear power industry, constantly rising costs for the construction of nuclear power plants and associated financing problems. He claims that nuclear power plants help combat climate change also turns out to be spurious upon examining the life cycle of nuclear power plants.

Summary of Jacobson and Delucchi

The Jacobson and Delucchi paper starts with a solution to climate change, air, water contamination and energy insecurity that needs a large-scale modification to clean, perpetual, and reliable energy at low price together with an increase in energy effectiveness. Previously, Jacobson assessed several long term energy systems in step with natural and other criteria, and found WWS systems to be superior to nuclear, fossil-fuel, and bio fuel systems. The authors believe that it is conceivable for the world to incorporate all control from WWS.
The second section emphasizes that the energy system remains clean even with large increases in population and economic activity within the long run; he considers solely those technologies that have basically zero emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants per unit of output over the entire \"lifecycle\" of the system.
In the third section the author claims that the EIA ventures of 2030, the world will require almost 17 TW in end-use power, and the U.S. nearly 3 TW. The use of electrolytic hydrogen is less productive than the use of fossil fuels for direct heating but more efficient for transportation when fuel cells are utilized.
In the next section the author considers the amount of land required for renewable energy. The entire footprint on the ground for the four million wind turbines needed to power 50% of the world\'s energy is only forty eight km2, smaller than Manhattan, whereas the spacing required between turbines to minimize the effects of one turbine reducing energy to other turbines. The footprint space does not include transmission, since the actual footprint space of a transmission tower is smaller than the footprint area of a turbine.
The conclusion highlights that changing to a WWS energy infrastructure will reduce world power demand by thirty percent, due to the efficiency of electricity compared with internal combustion. All purposes overworks by more than an order of magnitude of wind and solar power are likely in developable locations over land outside of Antarctica. The equivalent footprint area on the ground for the sum of WWS devices needed to power the world is 1.16% of global land area.

Comparison

The significant similarities between the two papers are their attention on nuclear energy, climate and environment, fossil fuel and finding possible solutions to those problems. The difference involves the technique of using different sources of energy to solve the problem.
Both articles summarize the solution for global energy. However, while Jacobson and Delucchi article focuses on climate change, pollution and energy insecurity, Mez concentrates on nuclear power and global warming. Similarly, Jacobson, Delucchi and Mez argue for changes required in energy infrastructure and analyze problems in the nuclear industry. Furthermore, Jacobson and Delucchi claimed that technological and economic are not the barriers but social and political are the major barrier but Mez says that cost is the major barrier.
The fundamental distinction within the article is that Jacobson and Delucchi state that wind, water and solar power will provide all global energy whereas Lutz Mez contends nuclear renaissance has not happened and , carbon emissions and global warming. In addition although both papers include a perception of nuclear energy, Jacobson and Delucchi go into more detail.
In summary, both the authors delve into nuclear energy. However, they both have completely different views and ways on nuclear energy policy will be resolved. Article one provides a solution to energy policy and it\'s easier to read.\nEvaluation
In terms of exactness, both articles have been reviewed and appeared in journals. Their reliability can be trusted. Article one was reviewed in 2012 while article two was surveyed in 2010 this could make some of the supporting information little out of date when taking into account. Both authors are qualified and have studied in Stanford University in department of civil and environmental engineering and institute of transportation studies at California University and Berlin Germany in department of political and social science. Article two has broader references cited than article one. Each article would be exact and solid sources for additional research for nuclear energy and sustainable solutions to nuclear energy.