![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk? | |||
Yes ~ I'll explain |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 17.39% |
No ~ I'll Explain |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
26 | 56.52% |
Not sure ~ Enlighten me |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
10 | 21.74% |
I'm skeered of anything Radioactive ~ but I might join in anyway |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 4.35% |
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He/Him Relationship Status:
Happily Single! Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nunya
Posts: 1,225
Thanks: 2,355
Thanked 2,574 Times in 789 Posts
Rep Power: 18276167 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.
Glynn |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Oiler41 For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|