Critical Analysis: Clean Energy

Brief Description

Apergis, N., Payne, J. E., Menyah, K., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2255-2260.

In this article, Apergis, Payne, Menyah, & Wolde-Rufael (2010) try to explain the causal relationship between Carbon (IV) Oxide, the consumption of nuclear and renewable energies, emissions, and economic growth using 19-country-group from different corners of the world from 1984–2007. The authors also use the panel error correction model to examine these relationships. The long-run estimates from this study show that statistically, there is a significant negative relationship between consumption of nuclear power and emissions and a significant positive association between consumption of renewable fuels and emissions. Results on a causality tests show that the consumption of nuclear power plays helps reducing the emission of CO2 in the short-run but consumption of renewable fuels does not. The authors explain the reason for this as the lack of enough storage technology to deal with sporadic supply issues.

Analysis

The methodology of this analysis in the article involves the use of panel error correction model. The choice of the model is justified by the nature of the study. For instance, panel error correction model provides the researchers with nice interpretation with both short-term and long-term equations that are applied in the study (Apergis et al., 2010). In theory, the panel error correction model is important as a representation of co-integrated Vector Autoregressive Model (VAR). Thus, with the panel error correction model, it is possible to apply VAR to integrated multivariate time series. This helped the researchers to provide representation courtesy of representation theorem by Granger. Therefore, with co-integrated error correction model, researchers obtain VAR representation. The panel error correction model representation offers more efficient coefficient estimates compared to others like the VAR.

According to Apergis et al., (2010), the short-term causality tests as shown in Table 3 indicates that the tests elaborate that consumption of nuclear energy is crucial in reducing carbon (IV) Oxide emissions, which is a crucial result for this study. The key focus here is that nuclear energy does not emit CO2; it is a very efficient and reliable source of power compared to others like coal and fossil fuel. The biggest selling point for this article to environmentalists is that there are no carbon emissions by nuclear power plants that have been examined. These researchers or authors embrace nuclear energy because of the imminent global warming threat that outweighs the possible threat of the localized nuclear power meltdowns.

Nuclear energy plants are reliable because they need little fuel and are less vulnerable to shortages caused by natural disasters or strikes. International relations also have little impact on the fuel supply to the plant reactors as uranium is evenly deposited across the world. As stated by, however, uranium mining leaves residues from ore chemical processing, exposing members of the public to radon. Although safety results of the compromised reactor may be disastrous, the precautions taken to avert this menace can prevent it as well. Nuclear power remains one of the safest energy producing methods.

On the other hand, nuclear energy consumption also has negative characterizes which should be considered. First, nuclear energy affects human health as the uranium used is a rare non-renewable source of power (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2012). Cooling system failures can also cause possible explosions that are hazardous. Excessive radiation exposures may be fatal or can cause cancer. It is also expensive to establish a nuclear power plant. Nuclear energy also affects the environment negatively because nuclear is a catalyst for the destruction of nature coming from waste disposal and meltdowns, which affect economic growth negatively. If the fission reactor loses coolant water, a meltdown occurs as the rods overheat. The rods containing uranium pellets of fuel dissolve and leave the fuel widely exposed. Without a coolant, the temperature increases and at 2800°C, the fuel rods then melt (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2012). A mass of white-hot molten then melts through its containment vessels all the way to the ground. The result is grammar-rays which are exposed in the traveling air which and affect any living thing within the radius of 300-1000 Meters.

However, the indication that consumption of renewable energy has a statistically significant and positive influence on the economic growth of a country could be misleading and should be restricted to the short-run. The nuclear power plants and fossil fuel industries show a comprehensible interest in withering the renewable energy; however, their days are actually numbered (Heinberg, 2015). The globe is heading towards a renewable world, whether or not it is intelligently planned for. However, the better path for this is through intelligent planning. This transition can be hastened by building more solar panels as well as wind turbines and.

However, an equally important part of the transition is deliberately transforming how we use the energy we trap. Such implies that we nearly or completely rethink the economy; it means as well as its ends. This means that growth ought to be the goal of the economy. Instead, nations must focus on satisfying the basic needs of their citizens in the current, shrinking budget of both materials and energy (Heinberg, 2015). In the meantime, to make sure that the continuing public buy-in of in this enormous collaborative project, the economic means of a country ought to include the endorsement or promotion of various activities that enhance human well-being as well as happiness.

Conclusion

The effects of nuclear energy in the long-run are negative because it will affect living things (human beings) and the environment. Nuclear energy may be reliable but it still remains the most destructive and dangerous energies ever. Regardless of involving economic growth as a goal in its use, we cannot guarantee that its use will be only for nonviolent goals. In turn, we can put our faith in renewable energy such as solar and wind fuels, because they are more effective as well as less dangerous fuels, without having to focus majorly on economic growth. All the same, we can still fancy the bidirectional causality that exists between the consumption of renewable fuels and the economic growth. This is because the expansive use of renewable power reduces the developing countries’ dependence of energy sources owned by foreign developed countries and also minimizes the risk of using volatile natural gas and oil prices as well as supplies.

References

Apergis, N., Payne, J. E., Menyah, K., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2255-2260.

Heinberg, R. (2015). Renewable Energy Will Not Support Economic Growth. Post Carbon Institute. Available at: http://www.postcarbon.org/renewable-energy-will-not-support-economic-growth/

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2012). What if the Fukushima nuclear fallout crisis had happened here?