The consequence of trying to turn back the effects of climate change is that alternative sources of energy must be explored. This is the ultimate goal of the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme.
How safe is it? What's the alternative?
So the cost of saving the planet from climate change is the increased risk of nuclear disaster. That's the trade-off.. Not very appetizing is it?
*Argentina,Armenia,Belgium,Brazil,Bulgaria,Canada,China,Czech,Republic,Finland,France,Germany,Hungary,India,South Korea,Mexico,Netherlands,Pakistan,Romania,Russia,Slovakia,Slovenia,South Africa,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Taiwan,Ukraine,United Kingdom,United States.
4 comments:
Our earliest nuke facility has been partially shut down - I remember all the guys getting work out there building the place in the 70's! - now, because the reaction is still going on, they have to continue maintaining it and my son's friends get paid the big bucks to expose themselves to extra radiation for a living.
I is more than clear now, their is no real alliterative to fossil fuels.
Lexcen,
I have a relative who insists nuclear power is safe, but he maybe a little biased, since he worked in Nuclear power plant. None the less, from what I know about him, he's a smart man. It would interesting to see him debate an opponent of nuclear energy on TV.
Chernobyl, TMI, now Fukushima. On the other hand, Exxon Valdez, Deep Water Horizon, and how many others? 6 of one, half-dozen of the other, either way, we need our energy from somewhere, and these are a lot more reliable sources than solar or wind. Political stability and price speculators are a different problem.
Post a Comment