Do you support the use of nuclear energy?
No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal
Note: "Thorium" is used to generate power through fission (via transmutation into uranium), and thus is a kind of nuclear energy.
- Wind energy requires constant manufacturing, installation, and disposal of replacement fiberglass turbine blades due to their constant errosion and loss of efficiency. Any environmental analysis of wind power needs to take into account the environmental costs assocated with that constant manufacturing and disposal.
- Geothermal power, tragically, is geography dependent and thus cannot meet the needs of all americans without significant reliance on long distance power transmission, which entails significant energy loss.
- Hydroelectric power, while comparable to nuclear energy in terms of safety and emissions, is A) geography dependent (similarly to geothermal, albeit to a lesser extent) and B) necessitates controlled permanent flooding of dam reservoirs. The latter fact means displacement (read: destruction) of carbon sinks in the form of natural habitats, to say nothing of the direct ecological damage.
- Solar power, like wind energy, requires constant manufacturing, installation, and dispoal of electronic components. E-waste is not sufficiently recycled, meaning even more mining and manufacturing, and even if it were, recycling is an energy (read: emission) intensive process. Recycling, particularly of materials difficult to recycle, should be the last line of defense against resource waste and climate change, not the first.
- Modern nuclear power is safe, low emission, scalable, and cheap, provided a long term commitment to it is made. It's primary hurdle is short-sighted public and private unwillingness to pay the large start-up costs associated with plant construction and certification.
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.