:
|
So say the whole world used only nuclear power. What then?
|
I don't like it when people go out and say 'zomg nuclear power is bad, ban it now!' without actually looking at the situation at hand and coming up with an alternative.
In about 50 years we'll be completely through all our fossil fuels. We'd have thousands of coal and oil plants completely useless and the only way to power massive cities like New York will be nuclear power. That's a simple fact, solar or wind power or even hydro dams won't provide nearly enough power for their money.
If at that point we still haven't found a good alternative, then yes the whole world would be using nuclear power and we'd just have to deal with it unless you want to get used to living without energy.
Nuclear power is as safe as any other fuel, as long as it is treated with the expertise safety that is required. Chernobyl was a clusterfuck of human errors. The reactors in Japan had to endure a 9.0 earthquake and even given the current circumstances non of the plants have gone meltdown yet. And even IF they go meltdown, a good 80% of the radiation will be contained in the structure itself, meaning it would not be nearly as bad a disaster as Chernobyl was.
I'm sure the entire world would love an alternative to nuclear power, but at this point there simply isn't one. Someone should slap the anti nuclear power protesters in the face with a nuclear power plant manual so they can actually see how many safety measures there are in place, instead of ignorantly following the horror stories of the media.