Another article on CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-26/us/nuclear.energy_1_nuclear-power-commercial-nuclear-reactors-nuclear-projects/4?_s=PM:US) refers to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, stating that a study compared the amount of such emissions due to nuclear power and coal, with nuclear power producing as much as 100 times less greenhouse gas emissions. This might lead one to assume that nuclear power plants would be supported actively by ecosystem-minded groups such as the Green Party, yet the party blatantly disagrees with revitalizing nuclear plants in Georgia (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=297), citing the ugly business of uranium mining to produce fuel for the operation of the plants and the lack of storage possibilities for spent fuel rods. Indeed, yet another question for the world of nuclear energy is whether it will eventually have no place to store nuclear waste. What happens then?
Even more hype funnels into the situation of nuclear arms and what to do about those. Here is an estimate of the numbers of nuclear warheads certain countries possess:
(http://politicsatcontinuum.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55298c7e1883301157096373c970b-800wi).
My thoughts on the situation are as follows: I feel that the world cannot simply throw away all the technology that has come with the rise of nuclear plants, nor can it destroy its immense stockpiles of nuclear weapons. What the world needs as a new medium for applying the old concepts. As of now, I do not think that the world can continue on its present course and not have more disasters or problems with fuel and waste. We need to revitalize a ailing system.
No comments:
Post a Comment