|
| Elis |
| The problem that the human being is facing at this certain point of evolution is a crucial one. It is now when we understand how important ecology is, and that everybody must be there to provide its support to clarify what solution fits best the challenges of the 21st century. Many energy plants or providers through the entire world are still built and operate on the basics of the old school. And that is using traditional supplies for coming with the final products, and thus making the CO2 emissions inevitable. This is why there are actually very few realistic and practical models of reducing the CO2 emissions, and the nuclear power seems to be an option. This mostly because the humanity has much more experience with it, it’s more cost-efficient, and it provides a great production capacity. But there is of course the down side: nuclear wastes, but they are fewer in amount. So the nuclear power is a way to make it through while competitive models of untraditional energy are developed and tested. Does anybody support this idea? |
|
|
| Maximus |
| as far as I know, nuclear energy doesn't pollute the air. Its principle of working is purely clean. No emissions are left to enter the environment, of course if we don't speak about uncontrolled nuclear energy. |
| tulaka |
| I think there wasn't cases of massive nuclear pollution but the ones happened at the end of WWII in Japan and by the end of the '90 in Chernobyl. Thanks god many countries are now avoiding to build nuclear reactors even for energy production purposes. |
| Maximus |
| France's energetics is actually 70% ensured by the nuclear stations. This allows France to be independent. The nuclear energy is good if it's being well-controlled. |
| tulaka |
| Nuclear energy can be dangerous at least because of the crazy protestors, who are ready to give the life only for ceasing the nuclear projects. They can explode accidently if certain nuclear devices are burn by strikers. |
