+90 It's an exciting thought that Japan has decided they want to stop utilizing nuclear power, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I personally think nuclear power should be researched like crazy. It has only two problems. It creates nuclear waste and it's unstable. If we can find a way to either utilize the waste or get rid of it without polluting/taking up too much space and to decrease the chance of a meltdown or leak we could create a buttload of clean, efficient, sustainable energy with no problems.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But even if it become everything you say it could, which I don't doubt. It still just doesn't compare to renewable energy. Why would we waste resources that might have a better use in the future when we can use energy sources that barf out energy with no problem? Like Solar panels, Wind Turbines and Hydroelectric generators, No waste... No problem?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well wind turbines are a waste of time. They're extremely inefficient. I read something about solar energy in freakonomics. I'm gonna look for that. And hydro power is good. It's just that nuclear power creates soooo much energy with so little put into it. It's so efficient. And if we learn how to do cold fusion all of our energy problems will be solved

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Solar energy and wind turbines are way less efficient. They don't just barf out energy with no problems. If they were really the best form of energy, people already use them for everything without.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They ARE used, in LOTS of places. Right now I'm visiting Germany and driving through the country side you see kilometers of Solar panels! There was also a day here where ~30% of the energy was from Solar panels. Thats power for at least 20 million people. Also, my home in Australia could earn us money with the 5 solar panels we have. We just don't use each appliance in our house as efficiently as we can. As for Wind Turbines, they are ~25% efficient (At thier lowest) as compared to a Nuclear Power plants 5%... Last point, is logic. Why on earth would you use a power source that causes more radiation than needed?? These things cause damage to your somatic cells sometimes causing cancer and damage to your germ cells. In my head, I'm not prepared to screw up my children's or grand children's genes. I just don't think it's fair on them. If you believe what you believe, go for it, I'm not stopping you. But I'm going to fight my fight to try and set up the world safely for future generations.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm living in Europe now too and yes there are a lot of solar panels and wind turbines. There all you see when you drive through the country. Also electricity is way the hell more expensive than it is in the US. It's almost as if those two things are correlated. Getting money using solar panels is possible, butI, if earning massive amounts of money were very easy using solar panels, they would be on every house and every business. The fact of the matter is that solar energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Nuclear power is one of the cheapest. (Coal is also pretty cheap) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Radiation doesn't have to run free. It can be contained safely in safe places like the deserts where there haven't been earthquakes. Honestly I'm far more afraid of the affect of the cost of energy on future generations than I am about nuclear explosions. A level 9 earthquake and a tsunami is the worst possible thing that can happen to a nuclear power plant and it wasn't as bad as everyone thought it would be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even if it's in a desert, the radiation does 'run free' as you put it. There are animals living out there, very unique animals at that and no matter where you put that damn waste, there's ways for it to come back or harm people. Even IF it's under 100m of concrete in the ground in a European country (It's name escapes me atm) Concrete isn't fool proof and will degrade over year, e.g. crack. It's not a great way to get energy because of what it produces, sadly. If it weren't so inefficient (From the mining stage to the actual power output) and didn't produce harmful waste, I wouldn't mind it one bit! But the fact is, it does :( and I don't see the point of bringing a burden onto yourself when there are ways around it. Even if renewable energy isn't 100% efficient, It's still a cleaner way of producing energy. There's no waste produced and you don't need to continuously feed it with resources (Apart from natural ones that we have no control over). It's fool proof! Besides, If we wanted fully super awesome efficient energy, we would have to increase the efficiency of every single power system in the world. Often 20% r more of the power is lost in that system (Through the generator

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Perhaps we should use Geothermal more! :P Didn't even think of it. May be expensive to install, but still only uses the heat of the earth's core to produce steam to create power (Or something along those lines) Anyways, Nuclear energy is only 1 on the list 'Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017' of 17! and it's not even the cheapest. Although coal is also pretty awful for the environment, it still doesn't create something that plays with your genes. (Man this comment is so disjointed) There's just so much to be discovered and so much to be improved! It's just so exciting :D Solar panels are relatively new, I guess. And imagine how efficient they could get if we put more research into them imagine the things they could do, That goes for wind turbines too. I must admit they are a lot more aesthetically pleasing than a giant nuclear power plant, It could be clean AND pretty! We can only see what the future brings, the things that we discover can just obliterate everything we know today. Only with more research, can we find out a TOTALLY efficient energy source. :)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh geez, I hope it's not a bluff.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why is that exciting?

by Anonymous 11 years ago