To go nuclear or not to go nuclear, that's the hot topic

  • loading...
  • Rating: 2.8571
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

Rating: 2.9/5 with 7 votes

Published Friday, February 29, 2008 at 15:44
by frederic.vareillas Join PES activists (1313 views and 4 comments)

All right, my friend,

You are concerned about the waste. So, all I can tell you is: What do you suggest we do?

We have two years left before oil and gas cost ten times more than today; solar energy and wind turbines can supply maximum 7 percent of our total consumption of energy; oceans are littered with plastic bags, wrappings, and are 80 percent DEAD; the sun is getting hotter; we are killing the great forests to get wood to burn (and transform into paper); Earth's temperature is rising 2 degrees Celsius (which is huge) due to CO2 and methane.

What would you say if we could recycle and reutilize nuke waste and nuke plants?

Think again: We have two years in front of us before the great depression.

What do you suggest we do?

Friendly,
Fred

Tags: climate change, CO2, electricity, energy, environment, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, oil, sustainable energy


Comments

1. Where there's political will, there's also a way by Asynjen Join PES activists on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 16:12

I suggest that the world's governments set some really ambitious goals for reduction of energy consumption and invest in research in clean energies. For example, I think it would be great to see initiatives in line with the Japanese top runner programme: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/991

I think there's a lot we can do, if we just get our act together and start changing our polluting habits to the better! 


2. I bet... by zentrist Join PES activists on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 16:51

... Fred, that oil will not cost 1030 USD in 2010 (price today peaked at 103 $ X10=1030$). Solar energy and wind, plus water, biomass and all the rest already contribute about 8.5% to the EU's final energy consumption, and the target of 20% is not entirely unrealistic, in particular, if we redirect funds from research in nuclear energy into renewables.

Last time I have seen the ocean, it still seemd pretty much alive, plastic bags were not visible, apart from those carried around by tourists. Fred, serously, let's not be so alarmistic! If we start today, we will not even have finished common planning procedures for another nuclear power plant in two years time. Let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of European citizens have objections against this nuclear energy. That might lead to  objections in court, which might in turn slow down the construction of nuclear power plants for more than two years. Political resistance against nuclear power plant and waste repositories have in some cases led to planning procedures which now last for thirty years. 

Now, in a democracy based on the rule of law, I can complain about citizen's attitudes, but I cannot change it quickly. For nuclear energy this simply means: whatever its merits are in terms of CO2 reduction and all that, it is not the quick alternative to oil and gas. People just do not accept it. So, if you really mean it with the idea that time is running out - the IPCC talks about 13 years till we reach the point of no return with global warming - then energy efficiency is the only alternative quickly available. And while we still discuss with citizens nuclear energy and its merits, we might have finished work on more wind mills or even second generation biofuels. Let's become realistic!


3. Dear Fred,... by reimannsdavid Join PES activists on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 18:34

... I do not propose the ending of nuclear power in Europe because of a blind prejudice against it. I know that our energy supply would collapse if we would not recognize that nuclear energy is one of the most important energy sources in Europe.  In Germany we had a long and emotional debate when Gerhard Schroeder and the SPD were in power in the years 1998 to 2005. As a result of this, the Bundestag decided to switch of all our nuclear plants little by little. The german population is afraid of this technology - and I understand them. But in the meantime the climate change debate casted another light on this decision.

My suggestion is a compromise of all energy sources. We should use every source that we can to downsize our carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible.  This energy-compromise includes two adoptions. It would be stupid

a)  to switch-off all our nuclear plants by now and

b) to start building new nuclear plants by now.

We should lengthen the life span of existing nuclear plants to use their energy as long as we need it. Building new nuclear plants is not part of a reasonable social democratic policy!

 

Regards, Dave 


4. Guten Tag David by frederic.vareillas Join PES activists on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 03:50

I am glad to read from you and I think you are a very reasonable and sensible person.

I find your comment about Germany's views about energy very interesting and constructive.

Please read "The revenge of Gaia (saving the Earth before it kills us)" by sir James Lovelock from the royal society then let me know what you think of it and where Deutschland stands about this big issue.

Grüss Got !

Yours, friendly

Frederic


To be able to post comments you need to be logged in. No account yet? Register here! Lost your password?