Why spend money on Nuclear power?
@lightlysalted (183)
March 18, 2007 5:54am CST
It seems to me that in our global drive to reduce carbon emissions nuclear power has somehow managed to move back to the top of the preferred list of meeting government targets as it is seen as a "clean fuel" which in terms of the carbon it emits is very true. I can't believe however that in order to meet limtae change targets everyone is now actively pursuing nuclear power again given the fact that the world still has no safe way of storing the waste it produces which remains radiative for at least 10,000 years. I dread to think what legacy we are leaving for our children.
2 people like this
3 responses
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
19 Mar 07
I do not like the nuclear option. It's too dangerous and getting rid of the waste is becoming more difficult because people don't want it in their back yards.
Do you remember Chernobyl. People still aren't allowed to live near that nuclear reactor and high radiation levels are still recorded.
It only takes one accident. So I don't like that option.
Lloyd
1 person likes this
@lightlysalted (183)
•
19 Mar 07
I agree I think that in the west we have become complacent about our ability to control nuclear power, all it takes is one accident to remind us we are human after all and the lives of thousands will be badlt effected
@michelledarcy (5220)
•
18 Mar 07
I think we should certainly be investing in wind, water and solar energy rather than nuclear power. I don't understand why this isn't considered an option for most governments.
1 person likes this
@lightlysalted (183)
•
19 Mar 07
i totally agree, after all we have so much wind or water available in most countries which could be eaily harnessed. The Nuclear option only gets more attention because of the lobbyists who are more powerful as they have lots of money
@ashuaaaaa (783)
• Germany
18 Mar 07
hey i differ with you on this matter. please dont mind. see its true that we still dont have safe way of storing radioactive waste but first of allthey are compact waste so can be transported easily. second thing scientist are thinking of keeping them on mars or moon.
if we achieve this then i feel nucelar energy is best way to get energy as it does not releases carbon.
1 person likes this
@lightlysalted (183)
•
19 Mar 07
don't apologise for having a different opinion, I usually rate posts as positive even is disagree with the main post as long as they are valuable, which yours is. I would be concerned about storing such materials on mar or the moon for two reasons a) it's not unusual for space shuttles to break up on launch and if it were carrying nuclear waste then what would the effects of that be? b) It's unlikely that torage conditions on mar or the moon would be as rigourous enforced as on earth and what would happen if there was a leak?
