Nuclear power is the only realistic way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Follow New Zealand. They're

Follow New Zealand. They're not using nuclear and why shouldn't any other country? They use renewable sources for about 63% of total energy output.

With the discovery of sea

With the discovery of sea water as a combustible product using simple radio waves, I think fossal fuels are on their way out. Go to Youtube and look up burning sea water if you haven't observed this yet. Apparently the correct radio wave frequency releases the hydrogen and appears to be clean burning. This appears to offer less risk than nuclear power, and talk about cheap.....

Cell Disorder, because of

Cell Disorder, because of Nuclear waste

I have seen the documentary called " Blowing in the Wind". It describe about
the nuclear waste. How nuclear waste can effect people and what type of disease people can get. People know what happening in Iraq.When the atomic bomb( Fat Man ) explode in Hiroshima what was happened to next generation.

I've seen the "Blowing in

I've seen the "Blowing in the Wind" documentary also Kanayde....did a good job at explaining the some of the hazards of nucleur waste. For those interested, this page [url=http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1489013.htm]here[/url] gives a brief synopsis of this documentary if you want to see it for yourself.

I'd just like to point out

I'd just like to point out that if you take it all the way back to the sun then technically all energy is nuclear. Some are stored, such as fossil fuels, wood etc., some are direct, such as solar, and some are caused by heat from the sun changing air pressure, such as wind power. Tidal power is also a possibility which is caused by the moon which primarily came from the original nuclear reaction known as the big bang.

Existence is just a nuclear reaction.

PRINCESS

PRINCESS HEBEGEBES!!!!!!!!

although it may reduce carbon emissions, only a handful of nuclear waste takes five hundresd billion years to disapear compleatly so realy u will never get rid of completly.

idiots.

I agree that there are other

I agree that there are other options that are available. However, the resources that are required for many of these are astounding. The size of a solar panel field that would provide the same amount of energy that a 1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant does would take up 33-127 square miles. While a wind field would have to be 300 square miles to have the same output.
The rest of the world has realized what a reliable source of energy Nuclear Power is. There are 24 plants being built in Asia right now and France uses Nuclear Power to provide 80% of their energy. There are many misconceptions that people have about the dangers that are related to Nuclear Power. For example, the burning of coal actually supplies the public with more radiation than Nuclear Power Plants. This is due to the Uranium content in coal. Check out any of these websites to see where Nuclear Power is heading. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.txucorp.com/power/faqs.aspx
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devtwelve.html

Chemistry is a very very old

Chemistry is a very very old science' move on!

exactly ! the nuclear power

exactly ! the nuclear power is the best source of energy that will not emit any carbondioxide. but there is a danger that the potential hazardous radio waste. we have to design means for the safety disposal of the radioactive waste. without that this is of no use as the carbondioxide levels are not much hazardous than the radioactive waste.

or put a penny in a graduate

or put a penny in a graduate cylinder and read the change of volume.

WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW [http://www.webelements.com/]

Copyright 1993-20010 Mark Winter [The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.