Personal and spiritual growth
- Purpose of spirituality
- The benefits of modesty
- The more the better?
- Children develop their parents
- Perceptive reality
- The human needs
- Higher consciousness
- About the meaning of life
Global warming, climate change
- Definition of global warming
- Cause and effects of global warming
- Responsibility and global warming
- Energy consumption
- Reduce the energy demand
- Carbon footprint
- CO2 emissions by country
- Reason for climate change
- Global warming news
Nuclear energy, atomic power
Time for change
Most recent content
With increased awareness the ability to act responsibly is also increased.
We are responsible for those consequences of our decisions, for which we can perceive the necessary information.
A great awareness of responsibility requires a high level of awareness.
Nuclear power
Nuclear Power is obvioulsy the way foward out of the current, and continually mounting, energy crisis. As of now (Feb 2008) it is the most efficient source of producing the mass quantities of energy that are demanded by the lifestyles and needs of today.
Comment from the editor: Most efficient? Less than 1% of the Uranium power is converted into electricity in a nuclear power plant. This is indeed very inefficient!
Even if many additional fission reactors would be built within the next 20 years, their contribution to mitigate global warming would be very little according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Most important is increasing the energy efficiency.
There are no other alternative sources of power that come anywhere near meeting the current energy requirements. For example, to power a City the size of London from wind power, an intensive wind farm the size of the English counties of Wiltshire and Hampshire would need to be constructed.
Comment from the editor: Of course there are alternatives. It is a combination of different technologies like generally inreasing the energy efficiency of most processes, apply solar power, wind power, wave power from the ocean, waste to energy and many many more. A further advantage of applying several different technologies is the indepenency we gain from from single suppliers.
As to claims that Nuclear power is not safe - technology has catapalted foward since that unfortunate incident of Chernobyl (which was the shoddiest powerstation in existance), to say that the chances of a repeat event are likely is highly incorrect - so to say nil. Contrary to a statement made on this website there is more than enough uranium to last a vast amount of time of total nuclear reliance in Britain alone, not to mention the rest of the world and also the huge quantities of Dutirium in sea water.
Comment from the editor: This is wrong information. You are obviously referring to fusion reactors. But fusion reactors do not exist and won't exist for another 20 years. Many nuclear scientists came to the conclusion that the application of fusion reactors is very unlikely within the next 30 to 50 years. There are simply too many technical problems still to be solved.
In addition, using fusion reactors would still generate dangerous nuclear waste. It would only mitigate the problem related to the limited resource Uranium. In other words: breeder reactors or fusion reactors are not an option. When Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair call for nuclear power stations, they talk about normal fission reactor technology.
Technically it is also renewable, because spent material is either buried, and the halflife of the material waited out until it can be reused, or it can be used in military aplications or sold for a vast amount of money (greatly benefiting the economy (temporarily)) to the Middle East.
Comment from the editor: You seem to have your own and very special definition of renewable sources. Nuclear power is clearly not renewable energy because Uranium does not grow anywhere and because there is dangerous waste created, which must be looked after for hundred thousand of years!
Therefore nuclear power is the way to go and the dogmatic rhetoric of eco warriors should be (to put it politely) ignored.
Comment for the editor: No, no, there are much better alternatives available. Nuclear power is a technology from the past!
Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Nuclear Power
A Nuclear Power plant gets rid of about 6 to 10 coal plants which are plaguing our society with smog as well as cars and such. France runs off of 80% Nuclear power and has had no incidents thus far. We have gas plants putting 3000 tons per day of SO2 which then mixes with moisture to produce acid rain, to sell natural gas to oil companies, putting out even more polution, and then burning even more natural gas to get the oil out of the ground. POLUTION.
Nuclear power is the most effeicent and clean energy of our day, and far superior to methods being used today. As for biofuels. Whoever is the nut that decided it was a smart idea to turn our food into fuel. are you retarted. it takes more diesel to make biodiesell and ethanol than if you just burnt the damn desial in your car. Look up your facts people. To many people talking out their ass's.
Too many cons for nuclear power / better alternatives
Nobody was denying the fact that coal plant or gas plants are polluting the environment.
It is wrong that France never had dangerous incidents with the nuclear power stations. They indeed are having many problems - but they try to keep it secret because it could damage the reputation of their nuclear industry! For an example, just look at the problems with nuclear waste handling in France.
See also e.g. the myths of nuclear power advantages.
But nuclear power is NOT the only alternative! Biofuel is only a good alternative if it is produced from waste.
There are - depending on the geographical location - different better alternatives than building new nuclear power stations. The first and most important step in avoiding additional nuclear power is increasing the efficiency of processes to save energy, however. And we will definitely have to change our life style.
Look for
Nuclear power is definitely a technology of the past.
Nuclear power in France
Here is just an example how France is trying to hide its nuclear power incidents:
See Article in Spiegel online for full details
Following Tuesday's (8th July 2008) accidental leak of over 30,000 liters (7,925 gallons) of a solution containing uranium in southern France, nuclear safety agencies are minimizing the possible danger. But emergency bans put on water use in the area by local authorities have worried residents and environmental organizations at a time when much of Europe is re-embracing nuclear power as way to slow global warming. ...
Greenpeace's Marillier said: "This accident just shows that what Sarkozy says is wrong and that nuclear power will never be a clean-energy industry. Even though France wants to export nuclear power to the world, it isn't even able to keep things clean on its own sites."