The Crisis Of The Fukushima Nuclear Plant After An Earthquake

The current energy sources we consume in the US are in need of a change. Dependence on the fossil fuels of oil and coal are hazardous for two important reasons: their undesirable impact on the environment and it has created the economic boom in the US. There is an agreement between the public and experts that nuclear fission is not the answer. The catastrophic meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant after an earthquake in Japan provides the proof. The introduction of horizontal drilling by the gas industry combined with successful development techniques of hydraulic fracturing has showcased as a solution to solve these problems altogether. We now gain access to the 100 years worth of energy in the form of natural gas underneath the†¦show more content†¦We lose more than we will gain from it. Hydraulic fracturing pollutes our water. It contaminates the air by the use of fossil fuel (transportation), methods that allow toxic gasses into the air, and methane emissions. Furthe r, hydraulic fracturing has been connected to seismic hiked activity. It raises a critical question of â€Å"what sacrifice will we make to the environment in order consume this cheap energy?† Hydraulic fracking has received the spotlight in recent years for several reasons. First, the burning of natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuel. It contains 50% less than coal, and 25% less carbon than oil (McGlynn 1053). Also, burning natural gas is less toxic because there are no heavy metals in its composition (Marsa). These features help the gas industry to captivate an audience. The properties of the gas itself have never, and still are not, viewed as the issue. It is the process and method that extraction of shale-bound natural gas deposits that has led to an uproar of controversy. What s the problem? Is fracking hazardous to our health? Let’s us analyze the economic rewards of fracking, before answering these questions. How much can the US benefit from the increase in extraction and production of natural gas? It has estimated that it can boost GDP up to 3.3 percent, an equivalent of $126.5 billion dollars in a form of new manufacturing jobs by 2025. More significantly, as McGlynn notes direct and, indirect