Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima Disaster Unclear - According to the Chicago Tribune, nuclear power may still be a good choice, or is it? To take a serious look at the future of nuclear power, a clear perspective is truly needed. On the one hand, we know that the burning of fossil fuels in massive amounts is not good for the environment. Clean energy is such as solar and wind power technologies are progressing, but do not produce the equivalent of fossil of nuclear fuels. Solar and wind farms take up far more space than a nuclear power facility or coal or gas plant and do not supply as much power, but they do not produce any eco-unfriendly by-products either.
Nuclear power has been growing in interest here in the U.S. since the climate change debate is over, but has it been diluted by the Japanese disaster? In France, nuclear power provides 75 percent of the electricity needs, and has one of the world's largest nuclear industries. The Green MEP has recently reopened the French debate over the future of nuclear power. Cecile Buflot, a French Green leader was quoted as saying that "The nuclear risk is not a risk that can really be controlled."
This whole new set of events at Japans Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant brings the future of nuclear power to the forefront of many new energy policies, and is forcing leaders to think twice about any new plans, and brings the U.S. anti-nuke movement back into the limelight. In a perfect world, we would not need nuclear power, nor fossil fuels to supply energy.
The truth is we still do, but how we proceed is of concern to many. Nuclear power can still be a viable alternative, if we proceed with more caution. I think until cold fusion or other alternatives become available, we should not discount nuclear power as an option.
We should, however, take more precautions when developing new nuclear power projects, include every potential disaster scenario in planning. Putting power plants near the ocean may be cost effective, but in the ring of fire, where there are many earthquakes with the potential for massive tsunamis, it is not such a good idea. Nor is it a good idea to put them near earthquake zones I would imagine. We must be proactive and prudent in our planning of nuclear projects, and continue to advance our safety and technological defenses. ( yahoo.com )
Nuclear power has been growing in interest here in the U.S. since the climate change debate is over, but has it been diluted by the Japanese disaster? In France, nuclear power provides 75 percent of the electricity needs, and has one of the world's largest nuclear industries. The Green MEP has recently reopened the French debate over the future of nuclear power. Cecile Buflot, a French Green leader was quoted as saying that "The nuclear risk is not a risk that can really be controlled."
This whole new set of events at Japans Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant brings the future of nuclear power to the forefront of many new energy policies, and is forcing leaders to think twice about any new plans, and brings the U.S. anti-nuke movement back into the limelight. In a perfect world, we would not need nuclear power, nor fossil fuels to supply energy.
The truth is we still do, but how we proceed is of concern to many. Nuclear power can still be a viable alternative, if we proceed with more caution. I think until cold fusion or other alternatives become available, we should not discount nuclear power as an option.
We should, however, take more precautions when developing new nuclear power projects, include every potential disaster scenario in planning. Putting power plants near the ocean may be cost effective, but in the ring of fire, where there are many earthquakes with the potential for massive tsunamis, it is not such a good idea. Nor is it a good idea to put them near earthquake zones I would imagine. We must be proactive and prudent in our planning of nuclear projects, and continue to advance our safety and technological defenses. ( yahoo.com )
No comments :
Post a Comment