News /
CO2 emissions in Poland. Should Poland go nuclear or stick with clean coal technologies? [59]
I see, OP started this thread a year ago. Latest happening, re Japan nuke plant thing, might make people review their considerations about the nuclear energy technology. After that Japan event, I read somewhere Tusk said he may do a referendum about the nuclear plant they are planning to construct. This is good, at least, he took this discussion to another point, to asking people as a real democratic country unlike other so-called democratic countries who never asked such serious things to their folks. However, since nuclear energy issue is a global issue, referendum in Poland only about a nuclear plant in Poland isn't enough. Asking adult people in Poland is not enough either. Babies in Poland too should be asked as they are the ones who can be most effected even with a little radiation level than certain level that adults can resist. So, referendum vote result should be 100%, 99% is not acceptable in such serious issue. Still not enough, people in neighbour or in close regions too should be asked as radiation does not understand the country borders. So, as I put my nose into planned project here too, I also put my nose into this business of Poland and wrote to PGE of Poland who is responsible about the nuclear plant project they plan to construct. People who already live in places with nuclear plants need to do their own works, by asking their governments to close their reactors. Japans already started to do this after their bad experience. I heard German greens already started that, too. Not that I am a member of any green org, greenpeace or whatever, I may not agree in many their opinions, but, this nuclear energy thing is totally somethings else. It can not be watched as spectators if you see the risk, especially about the babies.
Having said these, I still see many people all over the world still questioning this from energy feasibility point of view, claiming alternative energies are not economically feasable, their efficiencies are low, etc etc. And, even worse, many are comparing nuclear to some risky things such as cars, Lpgs, etc that are being used daily.. I can answer all these. But, not now, as there is a logic fail even at the beginning, at defining the terms. For example, natural energies are being called as alternative energies. This is totally wrong. If there is alternative energy, it is atomic energy, that's, nuclear energy. Science might have developed enough to produce this energy, but, control science technology is very primitive, hence, nuclear energy science is beyond the limit at this point. And, natural energy sources are infinite comparing the total energy being produced by all nuclear plants around the world. But, it is not time to discuss the energy issue first.
