Now after Japan's radioactive disaster, and reading about Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago and its horrible remaining effects, I've been thinking about this current issue: what do you think about the production of nuclear energy? Do you think it should continue, but in a safer way, as it's an advanced way of large scale energy production, or did this disaster came for us to finally learn the lesson?

 

the thread is all yours :)

I always felt it "clean" , until now. Maybe it would seem (in Japan) to just feel a tiny bit less a horrific event if it didnt follow on the heels so quick after the quake/tsunami tragedies. But the risks to human life and the environment just do not seem worth it.

Then again, just think back to all the loss of life in the coal mines.

think about renewable energies...

there've always been protests against nuclear power plants going on in my country and since the events in Japan the discussion has become much more recent again.

 

There have been so many special shows about this and I think last week it felt like there was nothing else to talk about anymore (the events in Lybia have turned the focus to something else....)

 

so, basically I am against nuclear power plants. There are alternatives. Healthier alternatives for us and for nature. Yes, more expensive alternatives...but I find it a bit ridiculous how we are kinda destroying ourselves and our surrounding (that may sound exaggerated, because a nuclear crisis like in Japan doesn't happen all day, but the consequences are too bad if something happens...)

 

even if the german government would turn off our nuclear power plants there would still be enough nuclear power plants in our neighbour countries ....I am afraid it would just be a sign....it isn't that easy to turn them off anyway, but I hope that it happens some day and we have enough alternatives that are better

Renewable energies are better for evironment, but they have the problem of not allowing massive production of energy, plus its energy still can't be stored. Basically, it's not enough for our use. Let's forget about petroil, that's the most insane idea ever. Should we keep producing energy from radioactive material?

I think that they were definitely looking into as a new energy source, but after all of the disasters it's not worth it. We should look into alternates.

http://foknewschannel.com/wikileaks-japan-was-warned-about-fukushima/

 

 

The Japanese government is to blame for its poor preparedness and safety standards, not nuclear power as a whole.

I never liked it as a main power source :/ so I vote no. I don't like 'em.

Also Adriana, you should reword that poll. (Is that possible?)

I don't like it but where's the better source? Like nuclear weapons once you have them in place it's hard to get rid of them.

I never liked it as a main power source :/ so I vote no. I don't like 'em.

.

To me it seems that it is the best and only practical short term enviromental friendly energy source we have at the moment. The chance of finding a perfectly eco friendly practical energy source is probably as big as finding a way to get rid of nuclear waste properly and make plants perfectly safe.

 

:thinking:

a) Japan is not doing that bad, as far as we can tell the radiation isn't that bad (I assume the gov's obscuring as much bad stuff as they can though to be fair) and

 

b) It was after the worst earthquake evar basically on top of a fault, which most people aren't dumb enough to build most reactors there and

 

c) Nuclear energy is so clean and efficient and amazing that it breaks my heart that this one disaster would set it back as much as it already has.

 

sadface.

or, governments could fund research into cold fusion and save the day

To be fair though most nuclear plants wouldn't face the same situation as the Fukushima one, so it's a bit silly to be suddenly hating them now. Fukushima was built to withstand an earthquake I believe but not a tsunami.

I am for nuclear power. Not only does it produce a huge amount of energy but also is clean energy too. Of course like w/ Japan there are times that these problems can happen, but at the same time these plants should be up to date and constantly be under testing.

 

I think if anything we should focus more on ways to contain radiation or limit it moving in event of a meltdown like here in Japan or at Chernobyl.

Japan's meltdown is so not like Chernobyl too, it's not even a complete meltdown at all... the media's blowing everything so out of proportion.

yeah, but it's I guess the biggest nuclear issue since Chernobyl

We need another nuclear arms race!

I've lived about 20 mins away from a nuclear power plant pretty much my whole life and during my school years I've gone there numours times on field trips. Also the company owning the power plant is one of the main providers of jobs in the municipality so I've always known people who have parents who work there. Because of this I've always felt safe with the idea of nuclear energy production, simply because I've gotten so used to hearing about it all my life. Lately though, I've sort of started to change my mind about it. This is because there are plans on building a storage terminal for the nuclear waste and up until recently the whole storage plan has seemed very safe I think.

 

Nuclear waste that's highly radioactive has to be stored for one hundred thousand years before it isn't dangerous to the nature and humans anymore. The idea is that this highly radioactive waste would be stored inside capsules made of copper that has some sort of protective barrier of bentonite clay on the inside, 500 metres down in the bedrock. This has been the plan for a few years now, after even more years of research, testing etc, but I recently heard on the news that they have found a risk with this. The capsules could become rusty after a certain amount of time and that could cause a leakage.

 

According to The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste the storage plan isn't water proof for other reasons as well. If the bedrock moves a bit during the storage time, which isn't so unlikely since the storage time is so incredibly long, it could result in cracks on the capsule and that could of course cause leaks as well.

 

I dont see how we can continue using nuclear energy production without putting more effort in finding an alternative way to produce enerygy, something that is more sustainable. We seem to think that there is no way we could find something thing as good as nuclear energy production, when we have no idea how to store the very dangerous nuclear waste. At least this is how I feel the majority of people in Sweden think and I just dont get it.

Also Adriana, you should reword that poll. (Is that possible?)

how reword?

No, I don't agree with nuclear energy at all. This is not only a recent change of mind due to the events in Fukushima though, I've been signing petitions against it years ago already.

It's easy to say that it's producing clean energy, but that is simply not true. Like Sofia said, what about the nuclear waste?

There simply is no safe way to contain radiation. It's something uncontrollable and the way nuclear energy has become the main energy source in so many countries just shows once again the arrogance and feeling of being undestructable of the human kind.

 

Yes, I probably sound like a Greenpeace activist now, but I don't care. :tongue:

I've written numerous papers in university as to why I am against it.

 

Obviously I do like it more than dirty fossil fuels. And I mean honestly, big woop, the radiation accident isn't as dangerous as spewing harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you can't argue that burning fossil fuels is good for human health in any way.

 

As for why I am against it:

- the fact that advancing nuclear power can also be tied in with developing nuclear weapons

- sure they call it a renewable energy although it is burning a non-renewable resource (uranium) that is mined. that mining process isn't exactly the cleanest thing around

- as smart as us humans are, we can't accurately predict what is going to happen to radioactive materials down the road. I'm not sure we can confidently predict what will happen when we shove it into the earth and wait for it to not be dangerous material anyways.

 

I'm all for a hydrogen economy!

how reword?

 

'Do you support the use of nuclear energy as a power source?'

 

Just saying that someone 'agrees' with it doesn't make a lot of sense.

yea I know what you mean, but ok I hope everyone got it right... thanks for telling me once again btw :)