The British government has approved Thursday a new generation of nuclear power stations, describing the move as Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST POPULAR PRIORITY
RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

588 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 11 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you think the British government should have looked into alternative energy sources instead of deciding to build more nuclear power stations?
The British government has approved Thursday a new generation of nuclear power stations, describing the move as ``compelling`` but infuriating environmentalists who are considering a legal challenge. The new stations are expected to be built with private sector help to ensure the future security of supplies and a balanced energy ``mix``, amid mounting global concern over long-term oil and gas provision and cost.

Britain`s governing Labour Party called nuclear power an ``unattractive`` option as late as 2003, but has rethought as energy costs soar, initiatives against climate change intensify and North Sea oil and gas stocks dwindle. It also follows an increasing global trend towards atomic power, which currently provides about 16% of the world`s electricity. The group Friends of the Earth want more emphasis on sustainable or renewable energy like wind, wave and tidal power.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2...


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Bottom Last Post

11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/10/08 - 7:19:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
Chernobyl. That's all i'm saying.
11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/10/08 - 9:13:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'm sure they have looked into alternative energy sources. Although it seems a sudden decision, at least they've just decided to get on with something, instead of wavering around.

I'm not sure where I stand on nuclear power. It's not perfect, but it's not the worst way we could go about getting energy.
11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Friday 1/11/08 - 8:26:59 AM EST (GMT-5)
I guess they should have.
10 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 6/17/08 - 3:18:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
i guess. im not really concerned with the affairs of europe, though
10 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 6/17/08 - 4:07:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
Building nuclear plants doesn't mean that research into alternative energy sources has to end. Continueing to burn fossil fuels while waiting for solar, wind and whatnot to become practical is just stupid. Nuclear power is a fine source of energy and should have been in widespread use 30 years ago.
10 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Sunday 10/19/08 - 7:39:28 AM EST (GMT-5)
i dont get why everyone freaks out about nuclear power stations but are totally cool with having nuclear missiles ready to be launched in loads of countries.
10 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:17:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
Nuclear energy IS an alternative form of energy. There is nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power.
10 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:21:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:17:47 PM Yankees15 wrote:
Nuclear energy IS an alternative form of energy. There is nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power.

Precisely. I think that Chernobyl is cited too much as an argument against the use of nuclear power. Anybody that's done research into what actually happened at Chernobyl can see that almost every single safety precaution was disregarded, and that the worst possible scenario occurred. The chance of it ever happening again is so negligible as to be hardly worth mentioning.

The only real downfall is the waste, which unfortunately is still a big problem...
10 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:26:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:17:47 PM Yankees15 wrote:
Nuclear energy IS an alternative form of energy. There is nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power.
On Sunday 10/19/08 - 12:21:24 PM Kungfullama wrote:
Precisely. I think that Chernobyl is cited too much as an argument against the use of nuclear power. Anybody that's done research into what actually happened at Chernobyl can see that almost every single safety precaution was disregarded, and that the worst possible scenario occurred. The chance of it ever happening again is so negligible as to be hardly worth mentioning. The only real downfall is the waste, which unfortunately is still a big problem...

yep, and in 1979, ROBOT ATTACKS killed more than 3 mile island (a guy died in an accident involving an industrial robot, cracked says so)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit