Does the world need nuclear energy?
The conference concerned a topic that is receiving more and more public attention in our everyday lives. We have to face the fact that the world will be running out of consumable energy resources most likely in our generation, which gives us no other choice, but to seek alternative energy sources. The two major sides represent the nuclear energy supporters and the so called alternative energy supporters, which term chiefly comprises of solar, wind and water energy. After listening to the thorough presentations of the theme’s most acknowledged experts I still have not changed my mind and believe that nuclear energy is and will be employed at a higher proportion.
What makes me think that is firstly the existence and at the same time non-usage of huge amounts of nuclear weaponry. As the professor emphasised, they have only begun breaking down the Russian stockpiles of atomic bombs and there is still a considerable amount in the American. Recycling would be by far the best solution to make these tools of mass murder of any use. Although I saw many promising points in the presentation of Mr. Mark Z. Jakobson, as long as these insane numbers of nuclear bombs are ready to be dismantled, I honestly do not understand why we should bother about alternative sources. There is no point in beginning a totally new project, namely to start establishing huge fields of wind turbines, when we have a former one that has not been dealt with properly so far.
Another relevant point is the ampleness of nuclear energy, which is unarguably one of the most significant advantages. It is not only ample, but it is steadier than its alternative counterparts, since those are very much dependant on a land’s weather or geographical attributes. Even the world’s largest pro-alternative energy countries, like Germany cannot rely entirely on these sources, since they are at present state less dependable. Nuclear factories use up less space and can even be...