Rethos

Rethos is a proud member of the Alternative Media Initiative home | FAQ | login | activate

Forgot your password?

Not a Rethos citizen?

Join Now

Not a member? sign up now

12:29 AM, JULY 17, 2008

Many prominent science magazines argue that solving the environmental crisis requires that we use substantially more nuclear energy.

If this was true I'd be all for ignoring the many health risks (including intentional and unintentional explosion) and centralization aspect for the sake of the climate.

But, I discovered from talking to some folks at the Sustainable Energy Summit at Amherst, that it certainly is not true. And this article explains how we can reach a carbon-free and nuclear-free society in scientific yet understandable terms.

McCain can take his 45 new plants by 2030 and toss them into the nuclear wasteland of his other misguided policy ideas.

Source: Science for Democratic Action

Rating:

mostly disliked

(by 1 user)

2 PREVIOUS COMMENTS

	JUL 26, 2008 james emmans
	nothing really wrong with nuclear power.

JUL 28, 2008
Richard Treadwell

Nuclear is more damaging to the environment than we might initially think with the mining, waste, and risk of radioactive contamination. I don't think we as a society want to depend on nuclear power when there are other truly sustainable ideas out there. If it was absolutely necessary to use nuclear energy to ward of climate change, I'd reluctantly go for it. However, I'm not so sure it is.

I worry about focusing too much on this solution to the ignorance of solar and other forward thinking technology. History has shown that when energy prices go down, investment in alternative technology do as well. I believe now is the time for the government to capitalize on a good investment market and start putting time, energy, and resources into those entrepreneurs and researchers who are trying to make the breakthroughs necessary to make sustainable energy sources economically viable. Come to think of it, implementing the available solutions would require a different economic landscape and social organization, which may be why nuclear is much more appealing.

I suppose it boils down to whether or not we believe society will sufficiently change. Ultimately, nuclear is not sustainable and polluting, whereas other technologies are not. If the government was honest about solving the problem there would be great incentives to save energy derived from alternative sources.

Will society prove to be unmovable, and nuclear be a necessary evil?...Who knows..but we should hold a nuclear free society as a goal worthy of pursuing. A backup plan perhaps, but not the main solution.