It’s almost mind boggling. After doing countless hours of research for a physics project this past semester on renewable energy, the conclusions seems to favor nuclear energy more and more. Research looked at the cost, output, affect on environmental/ecological concerns, global resources available, cross reference analysis with other energy (solar, wind, water, and geothermal) and of course safety (most surprisingly that nuclear energy is actually really safe and the term “nuclear waste” is used way out of proportion and in fact low-levels can be reused again as energy).
More thoughts. At the moment there is no such thing as a perfect energy source. The only way we’re going to survive is if we look into alternatives at the moment because it will buy us time. Time to further improve our studies and research on better energy sources. Just like how offshore drilling will lower gas prices (because it will force speculators to sell as oppose to bidding up) and how natural gas cars can end our dependency on foreign oil. Unfortunately the media continues to brainwash people so easily. Chernobyl was the one big incident that occured. This was due to an oudated model, poor infrastructure, maintenance, lack of containment shells to protect against meltdown. All other Nuclear Plants in the West are far superior and contain numerous built-in sensors designed to shut down the plant immediately in the event of trouble. More deaths caused from coal mining incidents. As for 3-mile Island, the amount radiation people were exposed to was equal to 1/6 % of a chest x-ray.
More Pages:
- Solar Power: Why Are People So Ignorant About The Safety Of Nuclear Power Plants? (11/16/2011)
- Solar Power: Why Are So Many People Still Opposed To Nuclear Power? (12/25/2011)
- Solar Producer: Why Not Supporting The Nuclear Energy? (7/26/2011)
- Solar Power: Do We Realize That When We Gear Up To Build The Next Generation Of Power Plants We Will Be Short Of Skills? (7/22/2011)
- Solar Turbines: The Environmentalist Are The Cause Of The US Being The Largest CO2 Emitter? (9/7/2011)
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
There IS nuclear waste that is extremely toxic for years. Where do you suggest we put it?
A few incidents in the past (note: Chernobyl) have led a vast majority of the people to believe that nuclear energy is dangerous. Just the ideas that come to mind with the word “nuclear” make people consider it to be dangerous. It’s mostly a political thing, really. It’s just another case of the majority being uninformed.
Whatever, just read this…
Some quotes on the negative side:
“Around 12 tonnes of high-level waste is produced per year per nuclear reactor.”
“Possible accidents at nuclear power plants pose a risk of severe environmental contamination. The Chernobyl accident at an RBMK reactor released large amounts of radioactive contamination, killing many and rendering an area of land unusable to humans for the next few centuries.”
At least wind power (just an example, there are other alternative energy sources such as solar power, etc.) won’t kill tons of people and render land unusable for centuries…
P.S. I love rachel’s answer.
Chernobyl is a reasonable explanation for the why nots along with each site being an excellent target for any terrorists. The waste is another issue that needs to be seriously considered. There is also the possibilty of leaks, then theres the added question about the amount of fish with cancerous growths and radioactive sheep in Scotland. There is an entire stretch of beautiful beach off of the north east coast of Scotland that is closed off and has been for many years as a result of the extant nuclear power station. The research on human fertility around Sellarfield is another factor to consider.In my opinion solar, wind and hydro power would be a more ethical, considerate and sensible option, its a sad shame that money always seems to be the deciding factor.
Nuclear power accidents both real and imagined have been sensationalized for the past three decades (well, that’s as far as my memory goes anyway), but it is easy to sensationalize since there is cause.
Breeder reactors carry a lot of inherent dangers with them. Granted they can be made ever safer as we find better ways of building things. But it’s not sensational enough to sell papers, therefore … the old sensational stories, or the new stories about poorly operated facilities rule and reign.
Forgive me Rachel, but your last statement deserves comment, money must be a major contributory factor in the discussion since it’s integral to society’s operation. If society didn’t turn on the flow of currency, then it wouldn’t need to be part of the discussion. However, economical solutions do not have to be un-safe or ecologically destructive solutions.
The real question here is why we build nuclear power stations at all. Enough solar energy hits the planet in one hour top power it for a whole year! Also consider that over its lifetime a single gram of silicon can produce 3,300 kWh of electricity without releasing life threatening toxic and radioactive substances. A single gram of uranium can produce 3,800 kWh of electricity. However, a uranium atom can only be fissioned once, whereas a silicon solar cell can absorb photons repeatedly to generate electricity. Gram for gram, silicon and uranium produce comparable amounts of electricity.
So what else comes out of the nuclear process, weapons of mass destruction! How many people can be killed by solar panels, exactly?
Don’t be brainwashed in believing that nuclear energy is clean and the only way forward. By accepting it you also accepting that war and nuclear weapons are as acceptable as teaching maths at school.
Go solar and do your bit to save the planet.
Just watch , the Democrats will do nothing to produce more energy , and relieve our energy problem.