At this point in our history I must agree that nuclear energy is quite possibly the present answer. I must in the strongest language disagree that it is a long term answer. Although it is true that nuclear energy is clean the residual pollution (radioactive materials) do not make it a more than stop gap solution. Within the next couple of years there will be a new source of energy on the market on the market within the next couple of years (I know I have invented it). The problem with this new source is 1): it does not pollute in any way, 2): it is meant for the individual home not for a grid system, 3): it will immediately impact on the present day providers or electricity and heating fuels and will eventually put them out of business. If you do not see these as a problem then you must consider that for each week of production of this product the big business fuel/electricity will lose five million dollars per year. inventor47@hotmail.com
Sep 15, 2007
Look At The Facts by: Rod
I hope it's OK to do this but this is a quote from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL Even Jared Diamond endorses nuclear power to save us from global warming. But some good points are made here against using nuclear energy to fight global warming:
The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.
Sep 15, 2007
No To Nuclear by: Anonymous
There is nothing irrational about fear of nuclear energy Maree. We only need one nuclear accident to cause radiation harm to millions, and for a long time. And where do we store the mountains of radioactive waste - for generations? Nuclear weapons anyone?
Renewable energy already supplies more energy worldwide than does nuclear energy. Look at Denmark for example with a great government policy on renewable energy that is paying off now. So it's not a matter of waiting for expensive and slow development of renewables.
I am as keen on saving the planet as you but me thinks I am not as emotionally irrational about it as you are.
