Nuclear Energy source, to use or not to use?
July 5, 2011 10:58pm CST
There,s no way we should use this Nuclear as our energy source, it will only contribute to the pollution, aggravating the global warming will be the baddest effect, the environment will be destroyed. Why not only try the energy source that does not affect the only environment we have, there are lots of them, the energy we get from the heat of the sun, from the waterfalls, the energy from the wind and a lot more. I am pretty sure that there's a lot more of them, we just don't know it yet, we just need to do more researches and studies.
2 people like this
• United States
10 Jul 11
I would just like to point out thae every alternate that you mentioned also has a negative environmental impact. Solar energy - solar panels are very inefficient, easily damaged, and then there are the disposal issues. Passive solar collectors take up huge amounts of fresh water (a very precious resource) and cause massive damage to the land they are situated on. Also, unreliable - disrupted by clouds, storms and darkness. Waterfalls - this is called "hydroelectric" and requires building massive dams across the rivers. The dams cause massive flooding behind them and disrupt aquatic migrations threatening entire species. Also, unreliable - disrupted by drought and freezing weather. Wind - just ask anyone who lives near a wind farm about them. Noise pollution and the damage done to migratory birds, insects, and bats that are after the insects. Unreliable - these are only effective for specific wind speeds - too slow and no electricity - too fast and you destroy the equipment. Every one of these relies on equipment that is created by mining, smelting, and manufacturing - all of these cause many types of damage to the environment. Every energy source has it's drawbacks. I am not saying that nuclear energy is better or worse; but, just pointing out that every form of energy production in existance at this time has environmental impacts. We need to balance efficient, reliable energy production while minimizing the damage to the environment. And, we also need to keep looking for new sources of energy production.
7 Jul 11
Using nuclear energy is totally out of the question. This thing would contribute so much to increase human mortality rate...I don't have to discuss the details, we'll just all die in the long or short-run. I am happy that we don't have such in our country - much have been happier if none of it exists across the globe.
• United States
6 Jul 11
After hearing about some of the past nuclear disasters (Chernoble, Japan and others), I would say that it would be better to not use nuclear energy as a power source. If something goes wrong, it could have devastating effects for years. With all the forms of clean energy, it seems that people would move away from using that as an energy source. I can only hope that people will wise up before it is too late! Thanks for bringing this topic up!
6 Jul 11
The problem is that nuclear power is phenomenally cash-efficient, space-efficient and stable. To get similar output from wind/solar power, you'd need a heck of a lot more space and investment. And your power output fluctuates badly on still, grey days compared to bright, windy ones. That means you have to plan for the worst output and over-invest, which means even more space and money. Nuclear power? Build a power station. It doesn't change size or power output. It's important to have ideals but governments have to trade off against things like having 5,000 100-foot-high wind turbines right next to your house. Or buying the land to put them on. It's going to take time to switch to renewable sources and, unfortunately, humanity doesn't want to wait for its stupidly-high power requirements to be met. After all, I'm sure cars, DVD players and iPhones are MUCH more important to most people than environmental damage...
6 Jul 11
I think one of the points the government concern about is the power brought from these resources. Lets say the solar energy, yes studies is still needed as the chips that absorb the heat is still not 100% effective and it brings less energy to be supplied to the cities and factories compare with nuclear energy. Furthermore, there are not necessary places that always have strong wind and waterfalls for different geometrical location.