« Paper consumption doubled in Canada during 'paperless office' revolution | Main | White Fake Diamond Ring »

Yay or Nay: Is nuclear power not so bad?


[A] risk/benefit analysis of nuclear power indicates that it is a safer choice than the fossil options that now dominate electricity generation.

In a nutshell, the proposition is that given no large-scale alternatives to current fossil fuel energy generation, the long-term risks posed by nuclear waste are not as serious as the present damage being done.  If fossil fuels burned today result in global climate change in 50 or 100 years, there will be no way to reverse these effects.   So should we switch over to nuclear power today, positing that it will fix today's problems, and stave off tomorrow's to a point where we can figure out what to do about them?  Is that a step toward responsible behaviour, or continuation of a trend of robbing Peter to pay Paul?  Read Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future and also how the IEA Energy agency backs nuclear power and post your responses.  [GT]

Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future | Energy agency backs nuclear power

Related stories: Is recycling utter rubbish? | Yay or Nay: Boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month? | Alternate Energy Sources For A Flourishing Future

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

November 15, 2006 in Agree or Disagree?, Energy saving | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yay or Nay: Is nuclear power not so bad?:


The comments to this entry are closed.