The Bean
Very Active Member
I'm for.
Pros
Are you for or against? France is using nuclear energy for 75% of their electricity, and I haven't ever heard of a nuclear accident there.
The only real con to me is that poorer militaries may build bombs with them.
Do you think there are any better alternatives? Hydroelectricity is also great, but a large part of the world, like the BeNeLux is to flat
Pros
- Basically free
- No greenhouse gasses, exept for water vapor from the cooling towers
- (One of the) safest energysources (deaths per watt)
- We currently have uranium for 300 yrs of power for all of mankind, but for ten thousands of years if we use more efficient designs
- Waste can be stored safely, for example the dutch 'Oranje doos' (orange box) storage plant can withstand an airplane crash
- Plants are expensive and cost a lot of time to build
- during that time, governments may shut it down because of "nUclEAr EnERgY iS BaD"
- If you don't maintain a plant properly, it may explode. Mostly a problem with poorer countries
- Chernobyl
- Natural disasters can be disastrous. This shouldn't be a problem in most of the world, only for countries like Japan, wich has a lot of earthquakes.
- Fukushima
- If you can build a nuclear plant, you can also make a nuclear bomb
- Cheap companies may just dump waste in the ocean, like in the '70.
Are you for or against? France is using nuclear energy for 75% of their electricity, and I haven't ever heard of a nuclear accident there.
The only real con to me is that poorer militaries may build bombs with them.
Do you think there are any better alternatives? Hydroelectricity is also great, but a large part of the world, like the BeNeLux is to flat