Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng
I'll buy that. I think if you look at it from a perspective of the energy produced vs the waste product created it is cleaner. But Nuclear waste does take a LOT LOT longer to get rid of. How do they run nuclear reactors in closed systems such as submarines and aircraft carriers. I don't think those produce a whole lot of waste (but I could be wrong - on the whole subject really).
I think the problem, esp with the any power generation technology, is that it seems to cause some kind of harm somewhere. Coal produces smog, strip mines, and health problems for miners. Oil produces oil spills, and carbon monozide. Even Hydroelectric can be a problem if it the dam destroys and ecosystem or floods some archilogical site (or potential site). Wind? The commercial wind farms could be considered an eyesore and they might effect birds flying by. Solar may be ok. (But it might help heat up the earth too, who knows?)
I think it's easy to find problems with technological advances. Almost as easy as it is to find benefits. The issue is recognizing, or theorizing, the problems before hand and minmizing them. And weighing the benefits against the problems.
|
There is no "perfect" energy generator. Like Newton said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What we are trying to find is the lesser of the evils. What technology will let us produce the most energy with the least amount of harmful byproduct?