http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668
In the article “Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven” from the Cambridge Network, the author believes that in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should turn to nuclear power rather than wind power. I believe that this is proper use of precautionary thinking.
The article states that using wind power as a precautionary measure is unreliable because wind power is erratic and unpredictable because it can change between days, hours, and minutes. As well, during high wind events, the turbines sometimes need to be closed to prevent damage ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
The article continues to explain why wind power, in Denmark, for instance, is not an appropriate alternative when it comes to creating energy with low carbon dioxide emissions. The author explains that since wind is so unpredictable, it cannot be relied on to provide energy for a large amount of a country’s population ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Instead, the author suggests that an appropriate precautionary measure to the need of creating energy without emissions is nuclear power, using Sweden as an example. The author states that even though there is an issue of nuclear waste, current nuclear power plants generate low amounts of waste ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009). This is important because nuclear power gives off no emissions and is more reliable than wind power.
In comparing the two options, the author also makes a valid point when saying that in the lifetime of one nuclear reactor, a wind turbine might need to be replaced three times and this maintenance is not only expensive, but dangerous when it comes to offshore turbines. As well, David McKay, the UK government’s chief climate change and energy advisor is quoted saying the wind power only makes a small contribution to a country’s energy production ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Overall, the author of the article provides with suitable precautionary thinking for a very important issue.
Reference
(2009, October 08). Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the great public misconceptions of our era is nuclear energy. Many groups argue that large-scale implementation of nuclear power should be postponed until we conducted more research into the effects of radiation on the environment and the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to wait. We must reduce our carbon emissions immediately, and so far, nuclear power is the only viable source of energy that can compete with fossil fuel-powered plants. Renewable "green" energy sources like solar and wind power may work on the small scale, but nuclear fission is the only universal solution.
ReplyDeleteAn article like this is of the utmost importance, considering the general public's wariness and less-than-eager attitude toward nuclear power as a major renewable energy source in the future. When the general public are informed of the facts, they will see that even in comparison to another renewable energy source, wind energy, nuclear power appears to be the better option, when taking reliablility, efficiency, and impact on the environment into consideration. So in comparison to non-renewable energy sources, it becomes clear that for the sake of our future and the environment, the major renewable energy source we must turn to could, in serious consideration, be nuclear power.
ReplyDelete