"Are we also to demand "Renewable Energy" replacing current nuclear capacity?" Climate stabilization demands zero greenhouse emission or carbon footprints. Nuclear source of energy is assumed to be environmental friendly, but issue is still under debate. One need to seek behind the wall in the context of nuclear energy as there are many processes including mining of uranium that have their own carbon footprints .Dumping of Nuclear waste has its own problem that can generate long term effects.
The different lifecycle studies regarding nuclear power are based on the assumptions and unrealistic investigations. The disaster of triple meltdown at Fukushima, Japan that happened due to earthquake and tsunami raised new question marks. The disaster damaged the green environment as well as threatened the lives of the human being. I am not biased with nuclear energy sources but it is hard to accept the after effects of this source of energy.
The carbon emissions associated with nuclear energy by different processes including mining, enrichment and processing of uranium accounted for 38% in comparison with fossil fuel sources. The construction of nuclear plants contributes about 12% of carbon emission in comparison with fossil fuel having same capacity. Keeping in view utilization of technology and disaster that happen in the last decade, the under developing countries need to focus on renewable energy sources as solar, wind, biofuels, and so forth. The renewable energy resources can facilitate more in stabilizing the climate rather than nuclear power plants. In addition, they are cheap and environment friendly because we utilize the waste that is an emerging issue in all developing and under-developing countries. As per reports, many researches are under consideration to minimize the carbon footprint resulted from associated processes of nuclear energy
According to researches, the construction costs of renewable energy for power is estimated to be 50 to 70 percent higher including storage but impact on climate is much lesser than the nuclear. Moreover, renewable power generating plants can replace the plants run by fossil fuel. George, writer of Gaurdian also supported the use of renewable power by replacing it the electricity generated by fossil fuels in order to expand the total supply by displacing the oil used for transportation and the gas used for heating. Are we also to demand that it replace current nuclear capacity? That is a need of the time to enhance the focus on renewable energy to increase the impact on the landscape of the world as well as to influence the public. He added that eco-friendly supports have wildly exaggerated the risks of radioactive contamination. The typical complete dosage from the 3 Mile Island calamity for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for employees working in United States. This, consequently, is fifty percent of the lowest 1 year dosage that clearly connected to a boosted cancer cells danger, which, in its turn, is one 80th of usually fatal exposure.
I would like to agree that in case other power generation sources cause no damages, these influences would weigh a lot more greatly. But power is like medication because if there are no side-effects, there is less probability of its effectiveness. I also favor a significant growth of renewables for climate stabilization. I could also sympathize with the grievances of their challengers. It's not merely the onshore wind farms that bother individuals, however also the new grid links need to be considered
In conclusion, climate stabilization mitigation efforts may be successful by addressing renewable energy, use of technology and minimizing carbon footprint of nuclear energy. The world needs to adopt a proper path to achieve stabilization optimized by involvement of each country for a common agenda for greenhouse gas emissions.
