Originally Posted by geoff's two cents
There are two very legitimate reasons I can think of why people might be anti-nuclear:
1) There's the issue of nuclear waste - Nobody knows what to do with it even now. It has to be sealed in steel containers and is for the most part stored deep underground. What will the long-term consequences of this mode of action be? Nobody knows. . . Unless you, eduardo88, do. In which case please enlighten us, the world. We're waiting. . .
There is no issue with nuclear waste so long as its sealed and buried safely, it might be there for a long time but there are no REAL issues with it. Afterall countries like France have something like 70%+ of their power coming from nuclear.
2) There's the issue of what happens when something goes wrong. Chernobyl is the only large-scale nuclear power disaster I'm aware of, but it's perfectly plausible that an increased appetite for nuclear power, coupled with the fact that there would be human beings in charge of it, could mean another incident of similar magnitude.
Now a days the chances of anything happening are close to zero so long as proper maintenance is done and modern safety checks are in place.
I think wind, and especially solar, power, are largely untapped sources of - for the most part - green electricity.
Yes but they can only cover around 20-50% of our power needs and still require other means of generating power.
However, I think the long-term 'solution', if there is one, will ultimately be for people to significantly reduce the amount of energy they use - which means limiting the frequency of high-energy activities such as long-distance commuting, the heating or cooling large homes, the consumption of products that require hefty amounts of energy in their manufacture, etc.
This is very short sighted, it might be true within our lifetimes but it wont be the case in the long term and it shouldent be the case.
I agree with Metro-One - Barren ski slopes are so good for animals, aren't they?
Barren ski slopes are actually very very good for animals, infact small clear cuts in the forests are good for animals thanks to grass, plants and berry patches that cover them in the summer months and provide food.
Were people really thinking of the birds and bats when they clear-cut a strip down Grouse Mountain?
No
If sticking a windmill in the middle of an area nowhere close to anybody's house, and with - locally speaking - limited ecological value, helps keep the city from getting electricity from burning garbage, I'm all for it.
Agree
Given that nobody actually lives near the windmill, and that opposition to the project stems largely from them having to look at it from a distance, opponents of this wind project are, it seems to me, guilty of NIMBYism in the worst possible way.
Totally agree.
I also agree that the people who choose to live in single family dwellings higher up on the mountainside are infinitely more guilty of ruining views than proponents of wind energy. If anything, it's the continuing ecological threat posed by that type of lifestyle that warrants the search for less invasive modes of electricity production.
Agree even more
The article above also cites examples from southwestern Ontario, where the windmills are quite densely situated - I drove through Goderich and area recently. A lone windmill on the top of a mountain nowhere close to anybody's house will not have the same adverse effects on human health.
Yup, I agree.
|
Prev
That would be heard all the way to border and beyond I'm sure.
Linear Mode
