Quote:
Originally Posted by aelle  This is one of the reasons why the anti-nuclear movement pisses me off. Work on a pro-solar, pro-tidal, pro-geothermal energies, work on new biofuels (bacterial fuels are IMO one of the most amazing fields of research at the moment), make something that works. No one gave up horses because they were bad for the environment. They gave up horses when they could use cars. |
Follow the money...the reason that the alternatives that you mentioned are not gaining more steam is that the larger scale energy producers are not interested in using any alternatives. What galls me most is that because of our experience with oil being able to transform humanity more than any other fuel source in our history, we are looking for a silver bullet to replace oil... It is not nuclear.....It is all of the sources that you listed above and then some...Those technologies do in fact work... Most are either cost prohibitive BECAUSE the larger energy producers are NOT interested in moving away from their cash cows. If we put all of the money towards research for the alternatives that we use in cleaning up oil spills etc I bet that we would be able to have several alternatives on a large scale..
I also think that since most governments fund a lot of energy companies could be a source of the lag in the alternatives....
I think turning away from nuclear energy is a fantastic idea....It is not a safe form of electricity. Ask the people in Fukishima about that... The people who had to be evacuated from the area and may not be able to go back home... To justify nuclear as being safe is rather dishonest.. There are no solutions for the waste....That was one of the bigger problems at Fukishima as it would be at any nuclear plant that got hit by a tidal wave after a big earth quake..
We have the technology... The money is going into the pockets of people who do not care about safe clean power..
I am not debating any more on this... This is my point of view, take it or leave it.