If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
POWER!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Plans were announced yesterday to start building new nuclear generators to replace Britains old ones
Many environmental groups beleive we should abolish nuclear power and concentrate on renewabal energy sources
Others say that nuclear powewr is the best way forward from fossil fuels.
This is one of the most important issues facing the world and urgent action is required what do you think.....
Many environmental groups beleive we should abolish nuclear power and concentrate on renewabal energy sources
Others say that nuclear powewr is the best way forward from fossil fuels.
This is one of the most important issues facing the world and urgent action is required what do you think.....
0
Comments
The quicker they develop fusion the better. But I think for now fission is the cheapest and most efficient option. In the grand scheme of things nuclear really isn't that polluting.
I think the main gripe is with the disposing of nuclear waste which is very costly and with the effects of leaked radiation
People that live near nuclear generators are proven to be more likely to get cancer, luchaemia etc.
There is also the risk of accident such as at Chernobyl or 3 mile island, despite excellent safety it is likely that such things could happen again and cause a disaster
Fusion is increasingly becoming more likely. We can already harness its energy in an uncontrolled form (fusion bombs) the trick is trying to create a controlled reaction. Because of the forces and heat involved the reaction can only be sustained using magnetic shielding, which uses too much power to be realistic at the moment. The ultimate goal is cold fusion, however I'm not sure how that works.
As for nuclear accidents, think how many reactors are dotted around the world. Its in the region of a couple of hundred at least. In the last 50 years there have been 2 accidents. They sound like good odds to me.
The only biproduct is H2o!
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'd rather see more renewable sources: wind power, HEP, tidal etc.
There are a number of problems with these renewable systems. First of all, they are expensive to set up, although not too expensive to run once they have been set up. However, they require specialist locations - wind turbines need sufficiently windy areas, HEP requires large fast flowing rivers, tidal requires suitable coastline, solar can't be installed somewhere cloudy (the UK, for example <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">).
Secondly, they purport to be environmentally friendly because they don't produce gas emissions or nuclear waste. However, building them invariably requires the destruction of beautiful landscape, which is in itself a form of pollution. So although they're "non-polluting", they do damage landscape and can upset habitats (eg reservoirs for HEP dams).
So not only do we have many places in which to build them, alot of the places they can be built are spoilt by them.
I personally go with nuclear fission, but also think much more money should be allocated to research fusion. I read an article a while back about a group of scientists in America who were making good progress with cold fusion, but then had their government funding withdrawn in cost cutting measures.
In the developing world, biogas is showing itself to be viable, environmentally positive and cheap to run. There is, however, the high set up cost and the inability to produce massive amounts of power in one plant.
I think nuclear's definitely the way ahead.
Nuclear fission is very efficient, but is potentially disastrous. Nuclear energy is scary stuff - but I agree it is a good source of energy and is better than fossil fuel energy.
Nuclear fuel can be scary stuff, but more people were killed in car accidents last year than have been killed by nuclear power plants in the last 10 years. I'm not scared to get into a car though.
Fair point, but I'm not suggesting we cover the whole Sahara with solar panels - we wouldn't need to.
About the transport - remember much of Africa has no electricity - they're going to want some at some point in the future. True enough, hence my support for it - but we mustn't get complacent about its dangers.
(NB this opinion is in no way an attempt to dismiss other opinions that may have been or will be posted onto this board - just an idea)
We need more renewable energy quickly and it really shouldn't matter about the damn cost, our planet is being fucked and were dithering about how we might have to pay a bit more tax <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
(Renewable energy sources aren't necessarily more expensive anyway).
And btw, I put real value on areas of natural beauty, and would not support covering entire landscapes with solar panels - I suggested lifeless deserts.
[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
I know people can't see the long run which is only natural. But it is the job of the govt to enforce changes, the private sector won't work in this situation. It is a fact that without massive leaps in technology or very drastic enforcements of current technology NOW then we will have to accept a decrease in our living standards over the course of the next century.