![]() ![]() And that is only for one power plant, but there are hundreds/thousands all over the world. Now try to do that with a nuclear power plant: It takes 10-30 years to break down one (!) nuclear power plant, which costs unbelievable amounts of money (which most owners don't have, so that must be payed by the state or so) and you have tons of high radioactive waste left, which you don't know what to do with there is just no safe place for it. Most of the remaining parts can be reused and that would be a great business, cause why should an old generator not work anymore? The copper, nearly every material can be recycled. Well, to show you, what I mean, I heard a week ago in TV an interesting argument: With all the wind-mills which are currently built here in Germany (which are ten-thousands, and that are not looking very nice in the landscape) it is no problem to break all (!) them down withing 5 years or so, if someone invents a better method to get "clean energy". Maybe it is "clean", but compared to what? That depends strongly from your standpoint. And that means, nuclear energy is far away from being "clean est". More or less much money is behind both sides, but you don't need to think much, that the pro-side has more money.Īll my experience with such different standpoints, and such kind of lobby-ism is, that the truth is somewhere between that two extremes. t%20source nuclear energy cleanest sourceĪlone from that search you can point out, that there is a big lobby for nuclear energy in the USA, why not everywhere else? Both sides are driven by more or less big lobby. You see, there are two completely different standpoints. Inform yourself about how clean nuclear energy is. MalcolmCooks wrote:Of course in real life nuclear power is actually one of the cleanest energy sources available. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |