Now that it is official that radiation from Fukushima reactors have leaked into the ocean, fresh fears have been triggered. How will this affect the food chain, especially for those who consuming fish? Nothing much to fear say experts. But anyone willing to take a chance?
Meanwhile, more nuclear proponents are coming out saying that nuclear is the safest bet! You bet. For instance, there is the UK's former chief scientist David King who sees nuclear as far less dangerous than coal plants. Hydro is no less dangerous, some say.
One of the chief arguments is the balance of energy demand and supply. Can renewables step up significantly from the 5 percent or so they comprise? Storage needs apart, they require storage which is still a challenge.
The real issue for the world, according to some analysts, is the “energy-spent” versus the “energy-paid-back”. The “energy-spent” includes the energy needed to grow or find the resources (like ore or vegetation), mine or harvest the resources, refine the resources, transport the resources, build the energy sources, maintain the energy sources (like windmills or solar facilities), and refurbish or remove the sources after their nominal life.
These calculations have not been done for any of the new technologies and without it, there is not much of a change in the scanario. It will be coal, gas and nuclear that will meet the kind of demand that is constantly on the rise. Perhaps, all we can do for now is to make these technologies safer and cleaner. Easier said than done? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment