why do people have different views about nucleur energy?

Question

why do people such as government minister, green party mep, CBI director, sustainable development advisor and environment ministerhave different views about nucleur energy

Answer 1

The difference of opinion do not come out of ignorance (maybe sometimes) but from totally different point of view. Nuclear energy for instance is important for the economy of a country its much cheaper than electricity and can supply more energy than any oil or coal generateor can produce. So, its obvious that governments want to get the economy running at its highest level - on the other hand you have the Greens, the enviormentalists inside and outside of the government who object vehemently against nuclear energy not only because of dangers but pollution (Plutonium waste) .
Others worry that nucldar energy will be transformed into weapons and some terrorist organisation and countries might use it against others. Look here what someone wrote in the Washngton Post:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.

And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply .....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html


I hope I helped a bit.

Answer 2

In 4 out of 5 solutions i've got considered on your question, the lack of information is surprising. First, nuclear waste isn't an important possibility whilst suitable dealt with. it somewhat is a political issue, no longer a technical one. the area is Yucca Mountain, no longer Yucca Valley. 2d, nuclear means flowers interior the U. S. are mild water reactors utilising incredibly enriched uranium gas. they can't, I repeat, can not blow up like an atomic bomb. third, a team reaction isn't lots a chained reaction as a sustained reaction. The circumstances required to maintain a sustained nuclear fission reaction are spectacularly complicated. If any between the aspects affecting the reaction is out of kilter...the chain reaction fails and the means plant is close down. The final element is this: those that are of the NIMBY crowd fail to understand that nuclear waste is already saved on web site centers by using fact the politics of nuclear waste has made it confusing to delivery waste throughout the time of state strains. it's time to strengthen up people and include a technologies this is mature, risk-free and can grant us with sparkling usable means for many, some destiny years.

Answer 3

Nuclear energy brings tremendous benefits at tremendous risks. Some people focus more on the benefits, and other people focus more on the risks. As well, some people, notably investors in it, focus on the fact that they have much to gain from nuclear power, whereas others, such as oil companies, focus on the fact that they have much to lose.

Answer 4

Much like alot of things we learn from others verbally very few people actually sit down and read the facts from reference books. So all we learn from others actually is what their opion is, not the facts . Much like the hiv epidemic , so many different versions out there it makes it hard to actually know the facts.