It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need for NO Nuclear Power Higher than ever!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

World Nuclear Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 376 GWe. In 2009 these provided 2560 billion kWh, about 15% of the world's electricity. Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea and Russia. The International Atomic Energy Agency in its 2010 report significantly increased its projection of world nuclear generating capacity. It now anticipates at least 73 GWe in net new capacity by 2020, and then 546 to 803 GWe in place in 2030 – much more than projected previously, and 45% to 113% more than 377 GWe actually operating at the end of 2010. OECD estimates range up to 816 GWe in 2030. The change is based on specific plans and actions in a number of countries, including China, India, Russia, Finland and France, coupled with the changed outlook due to constraints on carbon emissions. The IAEA projections would give nuclear power a 13.5 to 14.6% share in electricity production in 2020, and 12.6 to 15.9% in 2030. The fastest growth is in Asia.


This is bad. We have seen how Natural disasters don't always agree with Nuclear power plants and we should have learnt by now. We should not only be avoiding all plans for future Nuclear power stations but should be working to decommission all existing ones ASAP. With the changes happening in our sun, solar system and earth we should be preparing for more natural disasters. Which means trying to avoid as much damage to the population as possible and as we have seen in Japan and now maybe the USA, natural disasters do not agree with Nuclear power plants.

This is impossible you say? Too expensive? Not viable without losing a lot of the global populations energy? Well actually no. All energy companies could switch to cleaner and less potentially dangerous methods of energy if they wanted to but you know its all about the $$$.

Heck, if all the corporations in the world shelled out 1% of their annual profit after taxes then we could feed, clothe and medicate the entire world and give people the skills to better their own communities.

But then something called greed came along. Oh Greed the woe of mankind.


World Nuclear
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Of course it's all about the $. Businesses are owned by people and people need money.
edit on 23-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
nuclear energy is not the problem its the pricks who own them and handle them



What happens like always is greed overrides the safety aspect of it . Thats why we get into messes like fukashima



There are plenty of fail safe ways to deal with nuclear buildings in the event of a melt down . But those have to be prepared before an accident not after.

But of course that would cost in the deep millions if not billions to set up such safety features. That would hurt there pocket books....


we see that negligence of safety a.k.a fukashima




Most peoples voices were pretty low before the japan accident. AFter the accident you now wanna wake up to what the wise men knew before lol ...

problem

reaction


solution says icke


If japan accident didn't go down . Would you have made this thread?



if thats the case then isnt this issue about nuclear safety precautions instead of the actual nuclear power it self?


then blame the pricks in charge who avoid the extra safety measures not the awesomeness of nuclear power !



 
2

log in

join