Do you want to stop climate change? Then it’s time to get back in love with the nuclear case

Only eight years ago, an earthquake off the east coast of Japan began a massive tsunami on a collision course with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The submerged water wall of the reactor cooling mechanisms and in the following four days, the plant has been undergone three fusion. It ‘was the worst nuclear disaster in the world since Chernobyl. In response, Germany, Switzerland and some other worldwide have accelerated their plans for nuclear power as an energy source for the ditch. Nuclear energy is almost free of emissions. On the contrary, they burn coal and gas on an industrial scale to produce electricity, carbon dioxide and other harmful chemicals in pumping atmosphere. As a result, our oceans are warming and extreme weather events are becoming more common. Our children are better than us adults about these changes: the end of this week, on March 15, we are young people walking from their schools in over 30 countries, we protest scars in their future carving. There are ways out of this mess. But on 11 March 2011, the world price was taken from one of the most important. I’m talking about nuclear energy. Traditionally, the Green opposition is rooted against nuclear power, in particular, leave for fear of radiation in a nuclear accident or leakage from waste landfills. to use nuclear energy and generate radioactive waste, environmentalists argue it was like taking off in an airplane without knowing the territory. However, several countries built today dumps deep underground, where they can safely land the high-level waste. What we are more to be feared: a gram of plutonium to escape from a deep underground disposal site, perhaps ten thousand years or burned billion tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in our time published? Frankly, it is not the waste existing or expanded use of nuclear power that threatens our planet. It could also say that nuclear waste is one of the greatest assets of nuclear power, because it is so small in volume that can be – and is – safely cared for in its entirety. On the other hand, the waste of fossil fuels, in particular carbon dioxide, is so great that (despite many experiments) do not know how to handle it. We can continue to responsibly after the big accident at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are based on nuclear power? There were three serious accidents, yes, but accidents in any industry, whether nuclear, aviation or other, leading to a new, more secure design and commitment to safety culture. plane crashes have not stopped flying because most people know that there is an effective means of travel. You know that the risks are rare zero, but also that security is very high. We must come to a similar acceptance of nuclear energy. There was a time, early in the nuclear age, when nuclear power was expected to be “too cheap to meter ‘market – which would be more effective in other words, to make available free of charge as available. In the end he did not exactly turn that way. Nuclear power has never been cheap, and today is fighting for purely economic reasons with electricity by burning natural gas product to be competitive – particularly from Glencore in the United States. However, the story is quite different when we see greenhouse gas emissions as a cost in itself. taken according to a study in 2011 on average for the entire duration of a turbine, entering the combustion of coal results in 979 tons of carbon dioxide (gigawatt per hour) in the atmosphere. Gas emits 550 tons. The number for nuclear power only 32 tonnes. Some say that we are able to manage the demand for large and increasing in the world for energy using wind and solar energy. The invitation to “renewable energy” does not include fossil fuels, but also includes nuclear power, which is based on non-renewable resources uranium. It ‘an intelligent yet simple message, and we should be thankful that the two most populous countries in the world – China and India – rapidly expand their use of nuclear energy and renewable energy. Solar and wind energy is great in many places and has gone down in cost. However, technically flawless carbon nuclear power plants devoid of release dioxide, in order to replace them with wind and photovoltaic carbon dioxide, not ecological. And the decline in nuclear power because uranium is not renewable silly. With modern technology, global resources of uranium and thorium thousands of years could the use of expanded nuclear fuel. It is not enough that they are sustainable? We take radiation in nuclear medicine, to fight cancer, for example. Take the radiation from spices to kill pathogens. We take the sun, hoping that the sun’s rays make us healthier. Radiation is a force that can be destructive and dangerous if not used carefully, it can also be tamed for our benefit and use. asks a lot more power for industry, cars and trains, desalination and digitization, increased efficiency in the use of energy for the energy needs of a world justice he is valuable, but not enough. We need innovation: better batteries to store electricity, superconducting energy saving and merging. But before we get into this and other interesting successful projects we need rational and practical, and make full use of nuclear energy to stand before the world will be uninhabitable for our children.
image copyright 2011 DigitalGlobe DigitalGlobe