TED Conversations

Vivienne Eggers

Writing Thesis on Gaia Peace Philosophies Intl Law & Global Gov , Founder Gaia Life Way Intl Peace Institute

This conversation is closed.

Nuclear Energy is threat to life. Nuclear clean energy is a spin doctored myth that ignores the huge footprint of nuclear waste clean up

The debate about whether nuclear energy as a power is a commercially viable and clean energy source is ongoing.

Advocates of the nuclear position argue that if you read the 'facts' nuclear energy is even 'green' energy with zero or low carbon footprint.

I contend the position to say nuclear power has a zero footprint when this most lethal, toxic waste is virtually indestructible for millions of years. In scientific engineering, the risk cycle of nuclear power reactors cannot be fully validated as safe until waste can be permanently removed, stored, degraded.

Should governments have a policy to create more nuclear power plants before there is clean up and before 4th generation and further advanced technology can be adequately trialled and tested? Should replacement of old be the necessary policy before any new can be built?

The facts are that although nuclear power makes up 16% of the worlds energy supply - a significantly high incident and failure rate has been experienced since early inception. Every year there is at least one accident.

With the above fact in mind I wish to address the issues of waste solutions. How can we eliminate the critical risk of devastation to human?

What about solutions to degrade or transform it?

How might we remove it? (and permanently remove the risk)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: Energy needs are to be met.
    As long as we can't agree on cleaner energy sources (like mass solar energy from deserts, or wind from kites), we should keep nuclear up and running (like Bill Gates advocates: the 4th generation plants use current nuclear waste, and reduce it to a fraction, effectively cleaning up current waste and making great amounts of energy at the same time)

    Though I would rather see coal plants eliminated first, before arguing about nuclear.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: Well the reality is that neither are going to be 'eliminated' due to systemic governmental policy. Nuclear power because there is no way to eliminate it. Its no more safe to shut down the plants (which is a long and complex cycle) than it is to have them. But surely - what insanity to keep building them! And in volcanic, earthquake prone and exposed to other natural disasters.

      Coal because its an energy source that is cheap and accessible and fuels the capitalist model. All I can say is considering the length of time it has been around - people have become concerned enough about coal mining and production to 'clean' up much of the pollution that was first associated in the industrial revolution.

      But with nuclear energy, do not fall into the fallacy and complacent myth that when you can't see or smell something it is 'safer' and 'cleaner'. For example - carbon monoxide emissions from petrol fuelled vehicles - are also a good method for those suicidal to do the quick termination.

      My point is that we - humans - if we have gained any kind of intelligence over greed since the industrial revolution - will require to protect our own children and not just selfishly think of what we can do or cannot do in the short term - and what we need to do for the best way forward.

      Our focus as society should not be on justifying why we have or don't have - our focus and funding should be on how we can rectify the situation we have created in the past few generations. Do you want to be living near a nuclear power station with your family when the next natural disaster strikes?

      So why build them - (other than to recycle war weapons) when there are alternatives - and these are better for the health and long term prosperity of ALL life. That we even debate this is just ridiculous.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: Thanks Griffin

        More comments I can further my knowledge with. That LED transmission is fascinating. How does it impact with line of sight, transmission etc. I'll have to read up more.

        I'm also looking for that TED talk where the person apparently uses a film or something on the external of a building in a form that extends or relates solar energy. I was told about it by another Teddy - but I can't find it.

        I too think the answer for degrading (or cleaning up) nuclear waste may also have links to altering light wave frequency perhaps through a conduction medium. LED has modelling patterns for radiation alteration and relies on heat sink cooling conduction - sometimes cold plate. As most know nuclear power plants also use cold plate or water coolant.

        Permaculture - has really been gaining popularity in sustainable cityscapes - where space is impacted. I believe also mushroom intelligence is a vital significant in the ethno-botanics.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.