Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

Can world do without Nuclear Energy ?

Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44279

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 12:24am | IP Logged
Can world do without Nuclear Energy ?
Germany wants to take the first step but many countries do not have the natural resources to do so.
 
30 May 2011 Last updated at 23:36 GMT
 
Nuclear phase-out can make Germany trailblazer - Merkel
 
Nuclear power plant Unterweser in Esenshamm, western Germany, 30 May 2011.
Germany has relied on nuclear power for almost a quarter of its energy
 
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said a decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 can make her country a trailblazer in renewable energy.

Ms Merkel said Germany would reap economic benefits from the move.

Germany is the biggest industrial power to renounce nuclear energy, in a policy reversal for the governing centre-right coalition.

Mrs Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

The crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami in March, led to mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany.

The anti-nuclear drive boosted Germany's Green party, which took control of the Christian Democrat stronghold of Baden-Wuerttemberg, in late March.

Analysts say Mrs Merkel may be eyeing a future coalition with the Greens.

'Opportunities'

Mrs Merkel said that in its "fundamental" rethink of policy, Germany could set an example for other countries.

"We believe we as a country can be a trailblazer for a new age of renewable energy sources," the German chancellor was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

"We can be the first major industrialised country that achieves the transition to renewable energy with all the opportunities - for exports, development, technology, jobs - it carries with it."

She also said that electricity in the future should be "safer and at the same time reliable and affordable", linking the decision to step back from nuclear power to the crisis in Japan.

"We learned from Fukushima that we have to deal differently with risks," she said.

Under the German plan the country's seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again.

An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems - would also be shut down for good.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022.

The previous German government - a coalition of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens - decided to shut down Germany's nuclear power stations by 2021.

However, last September Ms Merkel's coalition scrapped those plans - announcing it would extend the life of the country's nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years.

The decision to extend was unpopular in Germany even before the radioactive leaks at the Fukushima plant.

Following Fukushima, Mrs Merkel promptly scrapped her extension plan, and announced a review.

Germany's nuclear industry has argued that an early shutdown would be hugely damaging to the country's industrial base.

Before March's moratorium on the older power plants, Germany relied on nuclear power for 23% of its energy.

Related Stories

 

 

Analysis

image of Stephen Evans Stephen Evans BBC News, Berlin

Nearly a quarter of German's electricity comes from nuclear power so the question becomes: How do you make up the short-fall?

The official commission which has studied the issue reckons that electricity use can be cut by 10% in the next decade through more efficient machinery and buildings.

The intention is also to increase the share of wind energy. This, though, would mean re-jigging the electricity distribution system because much of the extra wind power would come from farms on the North Sea to replace atomic power stations in the south.

Protest groups are already vocal in the beautiful, forested centre of the country which, they fear, will become a north-south "energie autobahn" of pylons and high-voltage cables.

Some independent analysts believe that coal power will benefit if the wind plans don't deliver what is needed.

And on either side of Germany is France, with its big nuclear industry, and Poland, which has announced an intention to build two nuclear power stations.

 


Edited by Summer3 - 31 May 2011 at 12:26am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrro

blue-ice IF-Stunnerz
blue-ice
blue-ice

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 33603

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 8:40am | IP Logged
Can we live without the internet, cellphones, cars, planes, IndiaforumsLOL?
The answer is yes we can...but why should we give up something that is beneficial to mankind...just because it has the chances to be abused by some...or because of accidents...

As long as the benefits from nuclear energy outweigh the harmful effects...I would say we should make use of nuclear energy...

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Summer3

Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44279

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 8:48am | IP Logged
Yes it's here to stay and we cannot do without it.
Nuclear Facilities could also be the future target of terrorist groups; so hope they guard it well from Osama JoeLOL
mr.ass IF-Rockerz
mr.ass
mr.ass

Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 9516

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 9:13am | IP Logged
WHAT THE FU-

BOOOM!

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Summer3blue-ice

zorrro Goldie
zorrro
zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008
Posts: 2252

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 9:21am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Summer3

Yes it's here to stay and we cannot do without it.
Nuclear Facilities could also be the future target of terrorist groups; so hope they guard it well from Osama JoeLOL
 Its a real threat. Countries like pakistan is in denial mode at present but thats not new.
India's safety would be endangered. Other than terrorist there is danger from natural calamity like it happened in Japan. We should start looking seriously towards less destructive types of energy.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Summer3

return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21495

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 11:20am | IP Logged

Unlike nuclear weapons, nuclear energy is a positive utilization of nuclear power for generating electricity. For several decades it has been a major source of power. Despite disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, we have believed that we can rectify the human error and use it safely.

 

Unfortunately, what happened at the Fukushima plant in Japan makes us reevaluate nuclear energy. This was a 'safe' nuclear energy plant, run by the best experts in the field, designed to have earthquake safety plans and everything to keep it safe. When disaster struck at a slightly bigger magnitude than expected, everything went wrong.

 

Disasters are rare and natural disasters like Fukushima are even rarer. However, is nuclear energy absolutely safe? Does it make sense to continue to use nuclear energy, despite the risks? We also need to consider the financial risks – the United States alone has had about ten minor/major disasters of over 100 million dollars each.

 

Most nuclear plants existing today do not actually have a disaster management plan.  Most nuclear plant operators are profit oriented and are resisting the development of disaster management plans. Take Diablo Canyon in California for example, located in an earthquake zone. Despite Fukushima, the plant refuses to develop disaster management. The new Gulf Coast commissioned plant has nothing in place for hurricane damage.

 

It is not as if nuclear energy is our only source of energy. There are many more viable and renewable sources of energy. Considering the extreme risk to human life and the long term consequences of nuclear plant failure, it appears that we don't seem to weigh the risk of a catastrophe as much as we should and they can far outweigh the benefits. Cost is often cited as a reason to continue using nuclear power. However, nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. It takes  millions of dollars to commission a plant. When you add to it the repairs and fixes required to prevent known disasters it adds up even more. Alternate renewable energy has far less disaster risk and so far, the management costs are also less. When you compare the cost-benefit of alternative energy vs nuclear energy in the long run it evens out. So it would make more sense to go for the one that has the less disaster risk.

 

I'm not against nuclear energy in general. I'm not against commissioning new plants, nor am I freaking out that all plants should be shut down and phased out immediately. We should not overreact or act hastily. However, out of respect for human life and the unpredictability that is mother nature as well as human nature we ought

 

-          Revaluate existing and commissioned plants to evaluate disaster risks and expect all existing and developing plants to have disaster management plans in place and keep reevaluating.

-          Focus on alternative energy in the long run, phase out nuclear energy and envision a future focused on clean, renewable, safe energy sources (this will take decades, but we need small steps now).

 

Germany is taking a small step in the positive direction by phasing away from nuclear energy.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Summer3blue-ice

-Believe- IF-Stunnerz
-Believe-
-Believe-

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 27071

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 1:31pm | IP Logged
Some people say our N-plants are safe, ya our plants r very secure like our black money in swiss bank.Confused...In india what did we learn from Bhopal gas tragedy?We don't have a safety culture in India be it nuclear safety or road safety...I think in india or pak, the nuclear plans are running 'Bhagwan Bharose' ...and handiling of radio active waste in India is still a big question mark?
 

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Summer3

-Aarya- Goldie
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 1628

Posted: 31 May 2011 at 3:30pm | IP Logged
It's stated that nuclear power provides about 6% of world's engery and 15% of world's electricity, where US, Japan and France alone use about 50% of nuclear generated electricity.  The real question is can we live with nuclear energy? 

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Nuclear disarmament

Author: _Angie_   Replies: 5   Views: 239

_Angie_ 5 239 24 April 2010 at 12:56pm by debayon
Joint family or a Nuclear family

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Author: jyoti06   Replies: 77   Views: 19385

jyoti06 77 19385 13 April 2009 at 6:37am by _Angie_
Nuclear deal passes Congress

Author: jagdu   Replies: 1   Views: 531

jagdu 1 531 01 October 2008 at 10:47pm by jagdu
Nuclear deal ??

Author: -Believe-   Replies: 0   Views: 508

-Believe- 0 508 26 July 2007 at 3:43am by -Believe-
India Welcomes The Passege of Nuclear Bil

Author: Aanandaa   Replies: 5   Views: 558

Aanandaa 5 558 08 June 2007 at 8:13am by IdeaQueen

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index