So you would like to stay with forms of energy that are 100s of years old as opposed to progressing towards newer and cleaner forms of energy that don't pollute the earth? If we have that ideology for the rest of the things in life we would still be riding horses and not have invented anything else for transportation. Technology advances and usually leads to better and more efficient forms of energy etc. It's a positive thing if newer forms of energy are profitable, and in fact as of recently they are showing to be more profitable than older forms like coal for example... but coal dug it's trenches first... and it is fighting to survive. *had to make some typo edits
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Not really. I am just saying that the transition and allocation is more about money rather than "saving the environment". Heck Obama was the greenest guy ever and still tanked all the environmental initiatives. It is mostly about lobbying.
yes and so far nuclear energy is the most efficient and less dangerous than all the rest. alternative energies cover only 3 % of the total global needs. there is way too much hype with very little to show.
"yes and so far nuclear energy is the most efficient and less dangerous than all the rest."
Please tell that to the folks over at Fukushima... there will probably be way better forms of energy than nuclear in the very near future... @kyriacos it was great debating with you... I have to get to work on some stuff though, thanks for the debate! (Sorry for all the typos in my posts was posting very quickly and multitasking) Have a good one!
exception to the rule means nothing.
There are way more people dying from exposure to chemicals in factories that make solar cells.