Environmental Networking Platform for Children and Youth by SAMSUNG E&A
Stay connected with Eco-generation :
| Share 
| 
- Home >
- Our Actions >
- Ambassador report
7
Comments
Three years after 3/11...Thoughts on Nuclear Energy |
|---|
|
March 11th, 2011. I was in Japan when the earthquake hit my home country. It has been three years since the calamity which no one could have predicted.
Even after 3 years, the damage in Tohoku regions has not been resolved, and I long the day that everything will be back to how it used to be. But even after three years, new problems continue to emerge. One of the most drastic, and complicated of all may be the issues surrounding the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants have a negative effect on the environment and its people. Although nuclear power plants are carbon free and as such do not produce smoke, the non biodegradable radio active waste is a significant issue that many Japanese citizens (and many individuals all over the world)are concerned off. Furthermore, nuclear power plants take up A LOT of space in comparison to wind farms and solar photovoltaic parks. LARGE volumes of water is also necessary for cooling and heating the power plant and many of the earth's resources are required for nuclear power plants. Yet, the Japan depends on the energy provided by the nuclear plants. Can we simply stop using them? Getting rid of them? Then, instead, fossil fuels and oils will have to be imported in order to compensate for the lost energy. Will the environmental impact of energy As such, there is no definite answer as to whether or not nuclear power plants are for the better, or for the worse. In Japan, a majority of the population (especially those who live in Fukushima) seems to despise nuclear power. On the other hand, energy is imperative in order to maintain a country, and nuclear power plants may be a source of energy with some drastic consequences at certain times. Specifically referring to March/11, toxic chemicals that leaked from the power plants was harmful to the marine environment, and had great damages on agriculture land facilities which made the food safety extremely poor. I would like to hear some opinions of the TUNZA community regarding nuclear energy please leave a comment if you are willing to share! |
 
|
|
|
|
|
Previous : TOGA and SURGA
7 Comments
Your article is fabulous Ms. Erika.
It is sad that most countries use nuclear energy thinking it to be a clean and renewable source of energy where in reality it is one of the most dangerous threats to our civilization.
Posted 30-04-2014 02:35
As the technology is progressing we face complications. Solar energy is good but requires a lot of space & efforts & resources. Likewise nuclear power is a clean source but disposal is an issue.
We must move forward & find an environmental friendly solution of disposal of nuclear waste.
Also, in earthquake prone areas, the nuclear reactors should not be built at all. If it is unavoidable then all measures must be taken to make it strong enough.
End of day.. we need energy but clean energy.
Posted 03-04-2014 18:38
It's really a complicated situation here for Japan. Depending on nuclear power for them is as dangerous as importing fossil fuels is expensive.
But then,I think Japan should channel its nuclear resources to another use or even export it and use the proceeds to import fossil fuels as life is more important than anything else.
Posted 02-04-2014 23:51
I agree that nuclear power plants provide low-cost energy at a stable price, and have relatively low operating cost. But it is not the cleanest source of energy. Nuclear energy is a clean source as it does not produce carbon dioxide but it is isn??t 100 per cent clean. Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste, which is not biodegradable and is extremely dangerous and remains hazardous for years. I have read about several ways in which nuclear waste is stored, such as burying the waste under the ocean floor, storing it underground or shooting it into space. The most promising option so far is burying it underground. However, this method poses great threat to wildlife, and if nuclear waste comes into contact with groundwater, it can easily contaminate it. So undoubtedly it is NOT 100% clean source. ....Use of nuclear energy poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity- as is already evident from japan nuclear disasters/leakages.
Posted 02-04-2014 17:15
Your article reminded us a very hard moment for humanity. However, in my opinion we should use nuclear power temporarily, until we are able to instruct nuclear fusion factories (about 60 years) which does not emit any radiation, has water for fuel, and is totally safe. These years we should avoid harming nature, by producing energy from other sources, such as nuclear power.
Posted 02-04-2014 03:26
Nuclear power is the best and its the future of energy generation....
As far as its demerits are concern we can minimize them by many methods so we have to focus on its improvement not elimination.....
Posted 01-04-2014 19:17
Thank you Erika for the article. The 3/11 explosion had given us lots of fundamental questions needed to be answered. First, is it the cheapest and eco-friendly source of energy? I don't think so. All of us could learn that it was not eco-friendly source of energy at all from the accident. And, it won't stop for itself until at least 60 years passed. It will require huge quantity of water during that period and even after 60 years, it will need huge amount of resources to cover it safely. Never cheap. So sad and so true :-(
Posted 01-04-2014 09:51