GamingUnion.net

Flashback007 · **April 28, 2011 07:11:38 PM**

I saw it was discussed a little bit in the topic of Japan. But I am curious to your opinion. Is nuclear power necessary or not? Is everyone overreacting now the stuff in Fukushima happens/happened?

First of all let me say, I think they overreact. This like a one in a million chance that this will happen. Don't forget, there are no problems with the nuclear power plant which was nearest to the epic centre.

Besides that let me say I think green energy (what's it called in English?) so energy from windmills and solar panels is 1) much healthier, 2) less riskier. Problems with it is, that there probarly isn't enough wind or sun to always get things powered, so until then I think nuclear power is a necessary risk we have to take.

In all these years only three 'accidents' have happened. In which clearly Tsjernobyl was the worst one. I can't remember anything of it, though I was one at the time. Fukushima is the next one in line and that entire area is inhabitable like in Russia. The third one is a small known incident on Three Miles Island in the USA. No-one was killed or injured or anything like that, but it was significant enough to get it's own Wiki-page.

Anyways to make things sort until we get beter ways of handeling with energy coming from natural sources, we have to use nuclear power.

donaldyouidiot · **April 28, 2011 08:30:26 PM**

well i live next to a coal power plant and it sucks being so close to a power plant. I'm for clean energy but i just dont know if the risks are worth the benefits when it comes to nuclear energy. But i dont know alot about it so if I'm way off dont blame me

**branden** · **April 28, 2011 09:01:53 PM**

When you think of Nuclear power in a long term sense, it is detrimental to our world. A lot of it has to do with social issues.

Nuclear waste is abundant and there is nothing you can do with it, but what is worse is how they get the material to power a nuclear plant in the first place. They blast a mountain with tnt, and start a uranium mine. Uranium mines are found in African countries, Russia, and the US. In other countries work conditions are poor and cause a lot of harmful health side effects due to the radon that is released from underground. The mining towns are not fun to look at either.

This isn't simply an issue for the consumers of Nuclear energy. There are so many other factors the average consumer is blissfully unaware of.

donaldyouidiot · **April 28, 2011 09:11:44 PM**

ao if you look at it nuclear power, while producing a large amount of energy, the consequences from just mining is bad enough to not use it

**branden** · **April 28, 2011 09:27:02 PM**

Nuclear energy is definitely a reliable means of energy and once it's out of the ground and it's in use. It's the social impact and future environmental dangers that are worrisome. The threat of nuclear meltdowns are an easy scare tactic by the media because it's something that can be an immediate danger, and to the viewer immediate danger=the only thing that will kill me.
Immediate dangers of the USE of nuclear energy is minimal.

It's the "before" and "after" that's most dangerous, not the "during."

armless-phelan · **April 29, 2011 10:34:56 AM**

I really do think "green energy" is the future, and I believe Spain gets about half of it's energy from windmills/hydro turbines, so it clearly is where the future is headed. Not to sure about solar panels, since the process to make them is allegedly not that good for the environment.

Kioran · **April 29, 2011 08:42:11 PM**

Green Energy wont be the future until we see a global paradigm shift. Right now people happily believe they're making a difference buying a hybrid car, and using reusable shopping bags.

Aaron · (March 10, 2011 08:09:41 PM)

Sometimes I wonder if people realize just how inefficient clean energy is. Windmills? Hah! Those things break so often that you're spending more money repairing them than they save by producing energy. You're better off not having them at all. Solar panels are even worse.

Oil will eventually run out. That's its only issue. Global warming? Even if you could prove it, a very minuscule amount of the air's co2 comes from burning oil. Most of it comes from volcanoes. Seriously, oil has next to no impact on our environment. Oil is also relatively cheap when you consider its competitors.

Biodiesel? It works, easy for society to convert to, and cheap. The problem? Too many countries aren't capable of producing that many plants. 1 tank of gas is enough to feed a family for an entire year. Not to mention, converting the plants into usable fuel is difficult to do in large quantities.

Nuclear energy? It's cheaply produced. Very cheap, actually. The cheapest of all energy solutions. The waste is a serious issue, though. I don't care too much about pollution because, as I've said above, humans have almost no impact on co2. I think we should put some serious coinage into studying nuclear energy and see if we can find a way to allow the waste to decompose.

**branden** · **May 01, 2011 08:01:31 AM**

Nuclear energy does effect the enviornment due to the mining necessary to extract the resources.
[Image: Uranium-Niger-006.jpg]

It totally ruins the land for future use. If you're talking about waste. That is waste. They took a chunk of the Earth and made it absolutely useless for future generations for something that is only temporarily useful. It also releases radioactive gasses trapped underground, not to mention uranium ore emits radon-222, into the atmosphere. Also, a lot of the uranium is mined in poor countries where workers are exploited. Sustainability isn't just environmental, to make a truly sustainable future we need to recognize the social impacts of our energy sources as well.

The "clean" energy sources aren't quite viable yet, but that does not mean they shouldn't be researched. Whether or not you believe in climate change or not, there are apparent negative impacts of nuclear energy.

**Sam** · **May 05, 2011 10:35:41 AM**

I'm actually quite a big supporter of nuclear energy - it is by far the most effective energy production alternative, and its dangers are always exaggerated. That's not to say we shouldn't be cautious, especially when building and running plants, but the energy they can give is huge. Nuclear waste is an issue, though it does have some limited uses.
Branden, I'm afraid I disagree with your "mining is bad for the environment" reasoning for completely disregarding the benefits of nuclear power. Mines have been used for centuries and are an extremely important way to access the Earth's resources; resources we require to maintain our modern way of life. Nuclear mines are far less damaging to the environment than coal and oil mines, in many aspects, and creating the energy has no detrimental effect at all.
It's not perfect, and I think we should explore as many alternatives as possible, but nuclear power is certainly better than coal and so IMO is at least a step in the right direction.

Cold fusion is the future anyway, it just needs inventing first. Tongue