Please visit the attached video. While surfing I come across really very interesting debate video from Mark Jacobson and Stewart Brand on TED. Trust me really worth watching it.
I always love renewable energy rather than nuclear energy but this video has shown me few amazing statistics about energy and the immense need of it and really made me rethink choosing right option. Now I am more confuse and not sure what should be the answer of this question.
I would still prefer to be on renewable energy side but I know for that the whole planet should come under one umbrella of renewable energy and will probably take another next 10-15 years and that's now make it impossible to happen but at the other side I feel like if we can make this happen in real I am sure our future will be much secure than its now. That's why I feel like believing in "I m possible rather than Impossible", although I truly understand that it will be miracle from heaven if happens in real.
On the other hand, we have nuclear energy which has great power if its been use for good causes but as everyone know science always have been like two sides of coin (Good and Bad) and I am afraid human being has habit of using it for bad rather than good.
I think maybe this debate will keep on going for ages but as a student would love to know all of your votes on this. I feel its really important for all of us to make this decision as early as possible as its going to decide our Planet's future. Really appreciate and welcome your views and opinions on this.
Thanks..With Warm Regards,
Gaurav
Interesting topic, Gaurav. I wonder what people will say? Check out this clip of one of my favorite comedien's episode about Energy Indepdendence in the US: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od#3080989
ReplyDeleteMy vote for nuclear. There is no point in arguing something is danger, every small thing (e.g., a match stick) in the world can be used for bad.
ReplyDelete@Rachel..saw that video..still laughing on it like anything..but jokes apart it really disaster from BP to Climate which can disturb life cycle for long time..!!
ReplyDelete@Reddy..hmm..I agree but when you have better options why to go for something like Nuclear which can end up destroying the planet in one shot if it get misused or uncontrolled once even..!! :O
@Gaurav, what are better options? No other option scale to the level of nuclear.
ReplyDeleteHmm..I would say..although its not really strong enough like Nuclear but surely they can make planet work longer than the Nuclear..!! :)
ReplyDeleteEverything in the world is almost equally danger when safety measures fail.
ReplyDeleteEven an accident between two ships with Fertilizers near mumbai causing Rs. 12crores daily, apart from other problems for the natural species live in/on sea.
So, should we stop using fertilizers, petroleum etc?
Very good example and I also agree there can be accidents in Renewable energy as well but at least those accident won't be the end of the world like infinite nuclear reaction.
ReplyDeleteWorld didn't end when there was an accident in Chernobyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
ReplyDeleteand yes there is difference in the range on how much damage they can do when accident happen, so does the difference between their capabilities.
ReplyDeleteFor same amount of money, nuclear will generate lot more power than renewable energy sources.
So, the difference is in both the things.