You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Nuclear energy, fuel for the future or better left in the past?
No on the contrary! I like the fact that you critique my writing and start a discussion. And with all due respect, I can only share my point of view on your remarks 😉
- The resources put into the development of the technology definitely shaped how we use the technology now, but such projects, in my opinion, can only occur in specific political climates. To me it feels a bit like saying, Imagine if we all could just put more effort or investments in eating less meat and being conscience about our consumption? A great future it would be indeed! But I'm afraid an ideal climate for such projects won't be for the near future, as long as no nation would yield great power from developing the cheapest and most efficient solar panel/battery. Or am I missing your point on this one?
- It might be that, to exaggerate my point, I minimized the risk of nuclear waste and indeed, the newest most efficient nuclear power plant would still produce it. But why don't we think about the carbon emissions in the same way? An unavoidable waste with direct negative effects, passed down to all future generations, a waste that cannot even be stored (so far). Wouldn't it be smart to dedicate ourselves to a form of energy that at least allows us to store its waste safely kilometers under ground? of course it will be expensive and nobody wants it, but at least we are conscience about the fact that it exists.
- No doubt about that, but I can imagine the same environmental costs about oil spills or drilling sites. I have no numbers on these effects, neither for nuclear, nor for fossil fuels, so I can't make a statement which one would be "better".
- Same as 3 actually.
Indeed Nuclear power is not a green energy source and it has its downsides, Al I want to do is get rid of it's bad image, just because it has consequences that are easy to visualize (the disasters so to speak) while other industries, such as fossil fuels easily have an even more dramatic impact and still get away with it.
Thanks for leaving your feedback! It's nice to hear from you.
Thank you for taking the time to reply and going through each of my points. The sad part is, so much of what you say is true. And we are in an immediate crisis--very little time left to address the effects of fossil fuels. But if we "dedicate" ourselves to uranium, if there's an easy out, where will the motive come from to invest in a better future?
Actually, meatless Mondays are becoming quite popular:)
I think the education you offer on the danger of fossil fuels is a service to the planet, but I can't endorse dedicating resources to a nuclear future. Just can't do it...
The motivation for green energy sources will always be there, because as you also mentioned, nuclear energy is not ideal. I am still a strong supporter of actual green energy sources and changes in habits to reduce energy demand. But if I had to choose between replacing fossil fuels with green energy over time, or changing nuclear energy with green energy over time, that's what I'll choose.
It feels indeed like choosing between pest and cholera. I think it all boils down to the question: Do we want a lot of slightly bad carbon waste that we cannot contain, or do we want a fraction of that waste (less then one millionth to be precise) but which is highly dangerous and lasts 100 times longer. And perhaps this will always be a personal choice.
You captured it...and you've made me think long and hard...