Things like solar energy look like very good sources of energy (and they are), but not in Europe. What they can but most of their bet on is wind energy, and that is it. Solar energy looks interesting, until you calculate the cost of the equipment, then check the life expectancy, maintenance over the time it will be in service and the energy it will produce in that time. Couple that with the fact that it requires some very rare materials in it to be made and you know it's not usable in its current form.
I still think as far as clean, renewable, reliable, cheap, and safe energy goes, nuclear is the best solution.
1.) Such small amount of material can be converted into massive thermal and subsequently electrical energy, it can more or less power the world, at least at the current rate of energy usage, for millenia, at least.
2.) It's not dependent on environmental factors to use (like climate or sunlight).
3.) Solar and wind plants sometimes have to take over several football fields of area to produce enough energy, but this is not so for nuclear facilities.
4.) It produces no exhaust fumes (except the water vapor used for cooling) and the radioactive waste can be reprocessed and reused for a number of applications, and the energy production to waste ratio is incredibly high, relatively speaking. Most people don't know that the particulate matter in the CO
2 exhaust spewed by oil power plants are in total more radioactive than the waste generated by nuclear facilities to produce a similar quantity of power.
5.) And it can be extremely safe, it just has to be built intelligently and in a safe location. Modern technology can allow for earthquake proofing and such, and many safeguards.
6.) Moreover, the technology developed for nuclear energy can be put to multiple other uses, not just warfare but spaceflight, powering the engines of large ships and other craft, research, and medicine.
7.) If you're an oil producer, there's the added benefit of having more oil to sell instead of using it domestically, which is less economically efficient for you.
The only downside is the initial investment is greatest for nuclear but once the infrastructure and R&D industry is in place it can last a nation forever. I think it's unfortunate that there has been such a great backlash against the use of nuclear technology in Europe and Japan and even US, but it's not from scientists its more from people who have let irrational fears and popular media of james bond movies depicting the evil villain holding the world hostage with a nuclear powered laser and such, and not understanding why some disasters associated with it in the past are not the fault of nuclear technology per se but rather mismanagement, imperfect technology, and unintelligent design of the facilities and where they are located.
I one time had a talk with a professor on this matter and he said he believes gas will replace oil, and then gas will be replaced by nuclear energy. I do agree with him. This was many years ago, now look at the gas pipelines that are being lain everywhere.
This is really unfortunate, I feel like the world and human civilization has a tendency to exhaust all the wrong answers before finally trying the right solutions. I am not sure why this is. Maybe there's an up side, like making the right choices is foregoing all the hardship and learning experiences associated with making all the wrong choices the first time around, lol.
But at least the most developed nations should have weaned themselves onto cleaner, renewable, and more reliable sources of energy long, long ago. The technology for safe nuclear power has existed for almost half a century now. It's beyond stupid that those nations that can afford to switch are going to take so long and go through all the non-renewables before making an intelligent choice for something so fundamental as what powers the nation's industries.
Topic: The strategy is to pressure even more (Read 615 times)