Nuclear Power is the only option....

Its about time we all started facing up to the fact that we are getting pretty close to a point where it will be too late for any alternatives. Energy demand increases because WE all need it and use it and want it and waste it. Isn't it getting close to the time when even us environmentalists need to start changing our minds and facing up to the fact that nuclear is probably the only clean way in which to get our energy in the future.

Did I just say that...somebody try and make me stop thinking this way!

 

Nuclear power isn't clean. It produces radioactive wastes that have thousand + year half lives. It may not produce greenhouse gases, but what about a partial or full melt down?

Peace & Love

 

I'm unsure I kinda see both sides to nuclear power.....but wind farms are soo much more attractive.

 

How about clean energy like solar and wind power?

Is free energy possible?

 

I'm all for wind power. Those who want wind power get a windmill in their backyard. Ok?

 

I would... My own source of electricity! No more bills! Plus, I could sell what I didn't use to neighbors. LOL Too bad its also location dependent.

On a side note, take Zinc and Copper, put them in a cup of acid, and you will produce a little electricity. It takes 50 or 60 of those to power a DC radio. That's how my chemistry professor listened to the radio while living in Egypt as a boy. Too bad there's not a way to get more power from that.

Peace and Love

 

sorry but i don't agree. windfarms do really look ugly, especially when most of them are put in areas of countryside. And what about all birds that are ripped to shreds when wind farms are placed in their migrartory path, even out at sea.

 

yep, they absoultely DESTROY the countryside. Ever heard the noise they make? Omg, if you had to listen to that you'd go nuts. It is a slow, loud drone....ruuuuumph....ruuuuuumph.

How can we save the environment by cluttering it up!?!?

 

totally agree, they're too big, too noisy, and too expensive. if we need energy, which we do more and more, we cannot fill up the landscape with these symbols of modern technology. Apart from cutting down on our own personal energy use what should we do? Is nuclear a 'real' option?

 

I think I read that more birds are killed in the highways than windmills. It's a huge number, and they are ugly. However, if I had a couple or hell, a farm, the slow, loud drone would be the sound of money in my pockets. It just depends on how you look at it. There's a community in MN that powers a small town with their windfarm.

Peace and love

 

thats the thing you see, is it money that should be driving our decisions?

 

Not necessarily; however, having my own source of electricity means no more cinergy, those overcharging cocksuckers... and no more gas! Grrr. I see myself saving money, while making a little by helping others. Not turning into some wind electricity tyrant.

People may see the ugliness but maybe they should look for the good. My good is no more electricity bills. Others may think about helping the ozone or fighting smog. Everyone is different. After all, the French wanted to tear down the Eiffel Tower after it was built b/c it was "ugly"

Peace and love

 

i know what your saying, but the problem is that it is all too easy to let the minority harness wind power (or basically those who can afford it or who have the space) but what about the majority. There is no way that each house or even small town can get all there energy from wind, solar, hep. The dilemma is that we need to provide energy for the masses not just the select few with the best intentions. And at the minute it seems that only nuclear can give us that.

 

Everything is guided by money in a capitalistic world. The big companies are not likely to seek anything good unless it is profitable.

 

the problem is that it is only the big companies that will supply us with our energy in the future (don't think that envoronmentally friendly renewable energy companies don't make money - cos they do), and what i'm thinking is that will this be nuclear because whether capitalist or environmentalist or not we ALL demand energy in our own little way and we need a constant supply.

 

What about the wastes created from nuclear process Greeny? And the risks?

Peace and love

 

look, I'm not saying this is the best way forward, but it is increasingly looking like the most reliable. There are massive risks and big threats to people and wildlife if a radioactive leak occurs - this is all stuff we know about already. But nuclear power is providing a large percentage of the energy for most developing countries already - so should the UK, for example, spend £60 billion getting rid of their nuclear powers stations without sorting out a reliable energy supply first. I just think that we have passed that time when everyone jumps on the bandwagon of nuclear protest.

 

I'm not on a "nuclear bandwagon" I want to know what is going to happen to the toxic waste. It is VERY dangerous. Why use a source of power that has the potential of killing the people that power is provided for? It's almost like taking one step forward and then two steps back. Nuclear power is something that should be considered as the last option.

Peace and love

 

It would surely be that the toxic emissions from fossil fuel power stations greatly outweigh those from nuclear power if we are talking about our current energy supply. CO2 is the biggest problem and I doubt that nuclear waste will give us such a problem and it certainly won't be and currently isn't polluting on a global scale. My argument, or thought, is that nuclear should start to replace all fossil fuel powered energy supply until the alternatives (wind, solar etc) are more readily available. Because if we keep waiting then CO2 emissons keep going up whilst we wait for the next radioactive problem which we now have better technology to stop from happening. We need the right mix of enefgy sources and nuclear should not be ruled out.

 

There are other alternatives: wind, solar, geothermal, tides, and hydroelectric. Here's a website: http://home.utah.edu/~ptt25660/tran.html

I did a project on ethanol as an alternative fuel. It has some of the problems as fossil fuel, the CO2 emissions, but they are not nearly as high. I was sick the day of the presentations so I can't tell you about the rest of the class, but there are alternatives.

Here's some info on Nuclear power. Nuclear power produces greenhouse gases through the retrival of Uranium, the transportation of the U and the wastes, as well as the disposal processes. Where would we put the wastes, once the current sites are full? There are very few places where the waste can be safely stored. It is very expensive to build reactors. There are highly radioactive biproducts, as well as low radioactive. However, it takes some of the most dangerous stuff over hundreds of thousands of years before they are no longer dangerous ie they disintegrate via half lifes.

Here's a site where I got some of the info: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tenreasonsclimate.htm I believe other options should be investigated before nuclear is used.

Peace and love