Monday, July 24th, 2006
Nuclear Energy
The co-founder of Greenpeace gets behind nuclear energy -
The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.
Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.
Personally I’m all for nuclear power. There was a big paranoid stink back in the 70s that basically killed the development of new nuclear power plants. Maybe it’s time we revisit the idea now that global warming is reaching center stage and the paranoia over nuclear power plants has subsided. People had less faith in science back then, hopefully this has changed.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Mike in Arkansas said:
And I’m all for bloggers who are for nuclear power! It’s refreshing to see the new interest in the field I have made my living in for the last 34 years.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Geoffrey said:
Hi first of all i have looked up many thing on nuclear energy due to a project i have in science and after suching websight after websight i also come to the conclution that nuclear energy is the energy of the future and that we should make more and take down coal plants. But i also think that things like wind energy and solar energy are important to.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
KISIKA E. KISIKA said:
thank uvery much 4 our msg
February 13th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
KISIKA E. KISIKA said:
thank uvery much 4 our msg
February 13th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
KISIKA E. KISIKA said:
thank uvery much 4 our msg
March 25th, 2010 at 7:05 am
kelvin ojwando said:
Talking about use of nuclear energy is like terminating the human race, think about the effects it would have on the human body, the massive radiations released from the fusion of atoms can cause lifelong mutations that can be transferred from generation to generation. think about the effects of terrorism since this would be a stepping stone to the manufacture of nuclear weapons,think about it?
March 29th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
chris said:
To kelvin ojwando:
I understand people’s fears, but you are totally incorrect about nuclear energy. There has only been one accident in the U.S. that released any radiation, and the amount released was so small it would be impossible to detect any difference in harmful effects or cancer.
Contrary to most beliefs, nuclear reactors do not emit radiation into the atmosphere- those giant towers emitting “smoke” are really just emitting harmless, non-radioactive steam from the tertiary cooling system.
The worst “accident” ever was Chernobyl, however it was not an accident- It was a massive screw-up that happened because of policies in communist Russia and the arms race.
Reactors in the U.S. cannot melt down like Chernobyl, and have many, many more safety requirements. Also the future of nuclear power will get even safer with pebble bed reactors and their inherent safety (huge negative void coefficient- although they use gas, not water).
There is a fear that terrorists could get their hands on spent uranium, but it would be impossible to make it into a nuclear weapon without incredibly advanced and expensive refinement techniques that can only be done by a handful of 1st world countries and far out of reach of terrorists. Even dirty bombs are really just a fear weapon and are no more destructive than the bombs they have know.
We are at much greater risk of destroying our planet through the continued use of fossil fuels than we are at risk of nuclear accidents or terror plots.
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
breonia said:
i look this this is wat i would look up
May 12th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Cliff said:
The fears people have about nuclear energy are totally unfounded. The power plants can take direct strikes from passenger airliners without suffering any structural damage. The US nuclear power industry has 0.13 accidents per 200,000 worker hours. Its more dangerous to work in real estate then nuclear energy.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Kevin said:
to say that something is impossible is irresponsible look at the three mile island accident in any case I’m not against nuclear but from what i can tell the cost associated with it in large part because of the quantity of necessary is somewhat prohibative
May 28th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Roshan said:
We need a well planned sustainable source of energy which wud follow the these norms
:
1.Low quantity and less hazardous waste generation, which cud be disposed off or reused easily…….
2.the enerygy should be worth of using the resource used……..i.e Maximum use of the resource should be done provided it is substantial and beneficial for sustainable development.
3. Safety precautions~~~~~~Very important!
4. It should be available to all masses……..its a common practice that people in power exploit such ideas….!
If these point are overcomed…………The energy crisis we are facing to day and the expected future crisis can be controlled!
Nuclear energy is a high potential enery source but….It maybe prove fatal………We need better technology for that!!!!!
Moreover we need to unite the countries in power[ Usa etc.] ……..!!!
[P.S: this is my personal opinion.......anybody can freely debate against or for this!:) ]!
July 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Adarsh Katiyar said:
Nuclear Energy is the future.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Alex Xu said:
The most potentially successful energy. If we learn how to handle this with guaranteed safety, then Global Warming might not be a problem anymore.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Michael Dell said:
yhhh, ummmmm, no.
Japan.
no, just no.