Which leads to other Questions: Are there alternatives? Is green Energy worth the effort?
Can a highly industrialised Nation relinquish Nuclear Energy and adapt itself to a more ecologic Power-Source?
In my Opinion, Yes. Even if Officials say that their Power Plants are 99.99% safe, in my Opinion we shouldn't wait for Doomsday and start thinking for ourselves. Because i do not want to be the one to explain to his child, that it has a missing pancreas because it "was good for the economy".
I think if nuclear energy can be done safely its definatly worth doing so :)
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is the natural evolution of industry, this planet needs to use it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts though, followed.
"Per terrawatt/hour of energy generated, coal kills 161 people - compared to 0.04 deaths from nuclear"
ReplyDeleteI don't think much more needs to be said.
Nuclear energy ftw.
ReplyDeleteper windmill zero people are killed :)
ReplyDeleteNuclear power is only a problem where problems exist. In the UK, the USA, Western europe and russia, it's not a problem. Fukishima is a disaster, sure, but it's only the follow up to a natural disaster.
ReplyDeleteWind turbines cannot power society. Gas, coal and oil pollute the air. Nuclear can power society and doesn't pollute the air. The risks with nuclear power are minuscule compared to how much we need the benefits.
so you are happy with leaving behind thousands and thousands of tons of radioactive waste that our sons and daughter will have to take care of?
ReplyDeletealso, i think if we build enough of them wind turbines and solar energy with a smart cable assembly system CAN power society. this would even provide a lot of jobs, imho.
wind power is where its at
ReplyDeleteNuclear power is a double edged sword for sure...
ReplyDeleteI don't get it, before the Japan stuff happening hardly anyone was bitching about it other then the usual hippies..
ReplyDeletewe need it but its dangerous.. difficult..
ReplyDeleteThe nuclear power plant stands on the border between humanity's greatest hopes and its deepest fears for the future.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, atomic energy offers a clean energy alternative that frees us from the shackles of fossil fuel dependence. On the other, it summons images of disaster: quake-ruptured Japanese power plants belching radioactive steam, the dead zone surrounding Chernobyl's concrete sarcophagus.
Nuclear fusion is much safer. It creates plasma; as long as you don't jump in the plasma while it's hot, you're fine. It doesn't emit radiation, and has no by-products. One bathtub full of water can create all the energy needed by one average person for his entire life.
ReplyDeleteThe type we use now, nuclear fission, has many problems. Such as radiation.
Seems more trouble than it's worth
ReplyDeleteNuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people.
ReplyDeleteWhen people think of the word "nuclear" they think of Chernobyl, they think of the atom bomb and they will now think of the Japanese earthquake. Unfortunately I don't think we can get rid of that fear despite really needing an legitimate alternative to fossil fuels.
i dont think nuclear power is dangerous if produced correctly and with correct safety precautions.
ReplyDeleteIf your safe with Nuclear power, then it should be used in my opinion. We need something that won't pollute the air and harm the environment.
ReplyDeleteSolar and wind energy technology are far too underdeveloped for them to be considered useful compared to nuclear energy, which is the best solution for now.
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is good in my opinion, as long as its run right and not poorly built and stuff then it can be extremely beneficial.
ReplyDelete