Early on man realized that fossil fuels would soon run out, and sonuclear power was born. It was glorified as the cleaner alternative tooil and coal power stations, promising lower emissions andenvironmental safety. But has it really lived up to our expectations?And is it the ideal energy solution for the future? We think not.Although nuclear power is efficient and responsible for about 25% ofthe world’s electricity production, it is flawed in many respects:Nuclear power cannot solve global warming:Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power isfar from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain – from the mining ofuranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant -greenhouse gases are emitted.Furthermore, their construction takes too long to solve globalwarming. In fact, investing in nuclear power deprives other efforts -such as energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy – offurther funding and development.Nuclear plants release radiation:The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil areconsidered “safe”.
However, this standard is based on how it impactshealthy, white males and does not take consideration for children thatare sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.They create harmful radioactive waste:From mining to milling, processing to enrichment, fuel fabricationto fuel irradiation in reactors, large amounts of harmful, long-lastingradioactive waste is produced. In addition to 20-30 tons of high-levelradioactive waste per reactor per year, this includes so-called “low”level radioactive waste.The current solution for the “disposal” or “storage” of this wasteis unacceptable. There is no scientifically safe place to dump thiswaste, and new reactors would exacerbate the problem. Additional “low”level radioactive waste would have to be dumped in landfills orincinerated, polluting the water and air.Nuclear plants are too costly:At $6 to $12 billion each, nuclear reactors are not a cheapsolution. Nuclear power has already been subsidized hundreds ofbillions of dollars. Why should we, the taxpayers, subsidize theelectric utility companies’ investments any longer?Development of nuclear technology brings war and terrorism:This has been seen at the September 2007 bombing of Syria’ssuspected nuclear site by Israel, and the controversy over Iran’snuclear program. Reactors will always set the stage for atomic weaponsproduction. So, as long as power plants exist, there will always betension over the possibility of a nuclear attack. Furthermore, reactorsare soft targets for terrorists to get hold of nuclear materials, sothe more reactors built, the greater the risk.
Any accident will be catastrophic:All nuclear plants are vulnerable to accidents or attacks.Nevertheless, if an accident did occur, the current evacuation plansare completely unrealistic. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act ensuresthe utility’s liability of an accident is limited to only $10.8billion. This is absurd, considering a serious reactor accident couldcause as much as $600 billion of damage. Once again, the balance wouldlikely have to be paid by us, the taxpayers.There are better alternatives:What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer andcheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with therecent election of our new Zhejiang Anrui Electric Appliance Co.Ltd., nuclear energy will be put torest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewableenergy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and israther simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides havealready become available, which you can see in our reviews section.
Tags: cncommutator
hookcommuesk