Elizabeth Berry

This conversation is closed.

Nuclear Energy: Given what has happened in history and the current energy crisis, does it have a future?

Curious as to what peoples' opinions are.

  • May 16 2011: Let me just clarify some things I felt I should clarify. The Fukushima incident yes maybe a tragic incident, but it doesnt justify the ending of Nuclear Energy. Solar, wind and all the "alternative" may look nice and pretty but at the end of the day no one can argue that they can't provide enough for every one. (They recently discover that windmill built close to homes sounds like a jet) The only way to provide enough energy for every one is going nuclear. Look at France as they have many nuclear reactors that is supplying almost all of their energy need. Nuclear still has a long way to go but i can see a future where its Nuclear supplying cheap energy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France.
    • thumb
      May 16 2011: nuclear is providing relatively cheap energy already. with all the regulations, it is not as cheap as gas or coal. the "long way" is in the past. the fukushima plant is 40 years old. just as many other plants all around the globe. new technology is multiple orders of magnitude safer.
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: We all know the reason why some hardworking community of people(nation/citizens of a country or state) like Japans face with such problems like the `Tsunami` and the nu-clear disaster afterward. The world politics prison people into some frontiers.

    TED wanted me to clarify my idea? Okey. I could do this.
    I meant that, we just born on Japan or USA or Turkey or somewhere else. It wasn't our choice not to face with such a disaster in Japan in place of the ones who died or survived.

    So; Japanese citizen, the people who want Japan nation to rise on the earth make investments on those `Japan` lands. Even they do know that Japan is in an earthquike zone. And the disaster is the result...

    I believe that the frontiers/borders going to be removed in the near future(not only ) and some portable/movable organizations like "diaspora"s going to represent those nations/countries. I mean the way like Israelian or Armenian Diasporas. Armenian Diaspora>Republic of Armenia. What I mean is that, as a result of globalization, world communities going to be closer and closer.(EU,SSSR,USA,Ottomans etc. are just like the beginning of this globalization process.)

    Restricting world communities with borders is outdated. We are not in stone age. Locations around the ecuador, earthquike areas or in other dangerous zones are not convenient for a living environment. So, human intelligence going to find a solution for those problematic areas like Africa or Japan in the near future and it will be a stable solution for future Nuclear Crises or Nuclear Disasters.


    So, Japanese is going to be free to rise his nation from a more health lands. Wars and enmity is going to decrease. With this, nuclear crises and disasters risks going to decrease. World is going to be powerful and more 1ited.
  • May 13 2011: The Nuclear energy program around the world was shaken by this incident. I happen to invest in Uranium One (just for full disclosure of this comment) and we just had a conference meeting about the Fukushima incident. According to them the price of uranium dropped well below $50 per pound during the incident but as of now the price of uranium is recovering due to the high demand from China, Russia, and the United States. Many of the investors have been spooked and there was a sell off after the conference meeting but I still see China and Russia buying up uranium and taken nuclear energy more seriously. Maybe the Fukushima incident was a wake up call that Nuclear power needs to be monitored more closely when in use.
    • thumb
      May 13 2011: or not. all industrial activities are dangerous. i bet wood processing causes more deaths than nuclear technology, fukushima included. except the latter gets on the front page, while the many industrial accidents considered normal. why focus on an already safe industry?
      • May 13 2011: Apparently the Fukushima Nuclear Reactor safety list was being tampered and that the plants was developed by the Americans. They were warned not to build on a fault line but they still did.
        • thumb
          May 13 2011: and still, the death toll is 3, and both of them died from non-nuclear reasons. the death toll of three mile island was zero. nuclear reactors are ridiculously safe. ask people in bhopal whether chemical factories are also safe or not.
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: Much of the technology for this field is outdated. If there is a renovation with current technologies these plants could be made relatively safe, and I hope they are.
  • thumb
    May 12 2011: probably not, at least not in democratic countries. so much fear surrounds the nuclear technology that politicians don't dare to support it. which is sad, because in the short run, the only alternative is natural gas and coal.
  • May 12 2011: It's clean. It is already relatively safe, but they will make it better. It is the future, especially after the carbon tax is in full swing.