Community Web Version Now Available
What do you think about the nuclear energy after Japan's nuclear crisis?
Mar 15, 2011 4:06 PM
Answers · 12
Nuclear energy is the only form of energy at the moment that can met the needs. Plus fusion energy (much cleaner and safer way to produce nuclear energy) will come in few decades unless humankind destroys itself before that. All the other forms of energy are either really polluting (like coal) or aren't efficient enough yet (solar, wind), not everyone have possibilities for making electricity out of water power and wood (bio-electricity) or peat are limited as resources (Finns use them in some extent for heating).
March 17, 2011
The fact that nuclear energy is cheaper, cannot make us forget about the danger that an explosion or a leak could cause to people. The exposure to radiation causes death, poisoning, genetic mutations, pollution, that affect the territory for ages!!! Maybe my opinion is so negative because I'm Italian and Italy is now discussing the possibility of building some power stations, but I don't trust the government and the way it works. I don't want to see my country destroyed in 10 years because some presumptuous and corrupt men didn't do things well and worried only about their money...
March 16, 2011
Simple having a nuclear power plant in a country means that country rich but the disadvantage when something went wrong. cowboy...
March 16, 2011
Before I answer your question, I would like to describe the situation in Japan's power plant, since some people tend to think it is going to destroy the whole world lol xD As you probably know, people are afraid of what is unknown to them. Nuclear energy is one of such issues. The problems with Fukushima power plant were caused by earthquake, which happened at 2:46 p.m. (local-time). Three of reactors working during that time were automatically turned off. After turning reactors off it is essential to chill them as quickly as it is possible. In Fukushima case, reactors are (very old, no longer in use) BWR-type (more info about it: ) what means they are moderated by water. However, the Tsunami that came after the earthquake has damaged the generators that were supposed to pump the cold water to reactors. Without a cold water, core of reactor might fuse itself. In order to prevent it, Japanese were forced to get rid of steam which gathered around the reactor. That is why they evacuated those people who live around that power plant. The gamma radiation rose 20 times but that is NOTHING. On our planet there are places where people live without knowing natural radiation around them is 200 times as big as in Japan and it is not harmful to human body. 5 μSv (micro Sievert) will not affect any living organism drastically. Moreover, the second explosion in Fukushima was an explosion of Hydrogen. The main reactor's tank and a shelter of it (sorry for not using technical vocabulary) have NOT been affected. But even if they were damaged, that power plant won't explode like a nuclear bomb. If someone says that, stop believing in that bullshit. What happened in Chernobyl is a completely different story. Well, after writing what is above my opinion should be clear to everyone, but just to make sure... I believe humankind have no other reasonable way of getting energy than by nuclear power plants and (not yet, but soon) fusion power plants. "Green" solutions are not efficient enough, and nuclear energy is not as dangerous as people tend to think. Most of them don't have the slightest idea of physics, chemistry and that is the reason of black propaganda against nuclear energy. A tragedy that took place in 1986 in Chernobyl was an outcome of many factors. Nothing like that is going to happen in Fukushima, and for sure it will not happen in any of MODERN nuclear power plants (fukushima is ~40 years old). I can't wait for new polywell fusion reactor and for results of ITER project.
March 15, 2011
I think actually nuclear is the only scheme that we have for our energy needs. For instance, in France, since we have the nuclear reactor, electricity costs 40% less than in other European countries. This thing could succeed merely in France nowadays, though we have a new technology called EPR, that can bear the blaze of a Boeing on his roof amongst other stuffs. Even if there is a meltdown of the reactor like in Japan, the French technology is capable to avoid the leaks of nuclear breath for the population. So, it's very sad and a bad news for Japan. We must do careful in the future where this technology is sold and settled (even if France does actually that, we have to watch), due to the fact that it may be responsible of uninhabitable cities for years where there are irradiated zone.... In the same time, we are consuming to many in comparison of the others ways we could use for make electricity, and even Germany who have invested a lot in others sorts of production, is coming back toward nuclear. Italia too, as though they've stopped during more 15 years all nuclear electricity. In fact, governments actually say they will cease all projects or rethink about, but they know the facts and the issues. There will have no debate, because if we will do a referendum, too many would choose to stop it unlikely to the prove of our needs by our way of life.... The only thing I find very necessary and it's an utopia on my that we should seize this like an opportunity to imagine an other world, with nuclear central all over the world furnishing all countries and making that it can not manage an other time for example in Japan. The resources should be organized like in a pool for all countries and settled at the better places possible in the world for that...But what it imply, any government is ready....^^
March 15, 2011
Show More
Language Skills
Arabic, English, French, Spanish
Learning Language
English, French, Spanish