21 Apr '09 18:29>2 edits
Originally posted by Black Star UchessSafety and pollution are not the only issues here. You can forget about safety and pollution -what about the fact that nuclear fission is non-sustainable and the fact that, unlike renewables, whether we like it or not we would be forced to eventually abandon all nuclear fission anyway no mater HOW much we may try not to?
From Above ;
'Nuclear plants can deliver much more energy than coal with virtually no air pollution'
Isn't that what we need? The arguments about Coal vs Nuclaer safety are interesting , but a bit mute:
Nuclear is intrinsically more hazardous in the short term - the technology is more complex. Perhaps when it was new, in the 1940s it was powers stations in pollution filters which make them run slower is a very short term fix.
The ore for the nuclear fuel is finite and WILL run out (just like coal) and once all the nuclear fuel is all spent there logically cannot be any more nuclear fission. And the more we turn to nuclear fission the quicker all that remaining nuclear fuel will be spent! -are you in agreement with me here so far? -this is just the consequences of the laws of physics.
So, even if it is made infinitely safe, nuclear fission logically has absolutely no long-term future.
Only the renewables have any real future which is why we should invest heavily on research into developing them and only them -it would be a waste of money, time and resources to invest in something that has no future such as coal or nuclear fission.