I've never been out and out opposed to nuclear power, I've just never liked that there's no good way of disposing/storing the waste. Also, for some reason, everybody's wedded to building giant power plants delivering energy to large regions. We can build lots of smaller plants (think of aircraft carriers, which are little cities)at less cost and less potential for catastrophic meltdowns (although I still wouldn't want to be living next to even a tiny one that failed). I don't know how smaller plants would have fared in the quake but it seems to me what has happened isn't an argument against nuclear power as much as it's an argument against earthquakes of historical magnitude. So, no, it hasn't changed my views. I'm still ambivalent.
No, they haven't. In fact, I have to confess that one of my first thoughts when I heard about the problems with the power plants was something like, "Oh damn. Now people will start protesting against nuclear power again," but then, of course, I immediately scolded myself: "Really? That's what you're worried about? Shame on you."
Not a bit. There are alternative sources that need to be looked into. I just can't imagine why anyone would build these plants in any country on the Ring of Fire. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis... that's just asking for trouble.
I would like to see a balance. I would like a combination of nuclear, wind, solar and tidal generation of power. Coal is too dirty and don't get me started on natural gas and the damage that 'fracking' does.
I've always been opposed - for me, the biggest problem is the waste and that we have no storage ability for said waist.This just reminds me how dangerous it all is.Having said that, I very much want us to move to renewable energy sources, and I believe that we can get there.
nope. I've been opposed to nukes for years - seriously, in the United States, we're gonna schlep the waste half way across the country to some mine? Solar - among others - is much more feasible; high initial cost but no dependency on foreign oil, which, if I've understood the rhetoric of every President since at least Nixon, is the objective.
My views haven't changed. Nuclear, natural gas, and coal-power plants (and, within geographic constraints, hydro and geo-thermal) are our choices for consistent power. Solar and wind have less environmental impact but are inconsistent. Relying on a small number (or one) of those options increases the risk of power-outage. Nuclear power generators made today (as opposed to the 40-year old Japanese facility) are both smaller and less prone to failure; I see no reason why further improvements can't be made in the future to reduce the risk and deal with the waste.
No, even after Three mile island and Chernobyl. I still think it is an option, I feel every energy source is going to be a problem. Before coal, areas were deforested for firewood, acid mine drainage from coal mines and stack emission problems (which have a lot of health issues which are probably more complex than effects of radiation). And to include oil spills and political instability in the middle east, what else can go wrong with an energy source? Hydroelectric certainly is no holy grail of energy, the three rivers gorge project displaced whole communities and arable land.I don't think we have a "perfect" fuel, until we can get something like "cold fusion" hyped up in the early 90's we are going to have to still use these current sources.
Post a Comment