What the world needs is carbon-free power generation that can be easily achieved on a large scale, providing a stable and reliable source of power in all conditions, without the need for electricity. ” increase the land area.
“The world really needs to rethink the way we approach and manage climate change” – this is a recent opinion by political scientist Joshua S. Goldstein and energy engineer Staffan A. Qvist.
Specifically, in a Wall Street magazine article, the duo believe that humanity is currently unable to solve the story of global warming with wind and solar power alone. To be more precise, they are not fast enough. The best scenario is that when the whole world reaches the level of Germany – the leading country in clean energy, the amount of “clean” electricity produced will only reach one fifth of human needs.
With the best of these scenarios, it will take us 150 years to sort out the carbon remaining on Earth. Meanwhile, according to Goldstein and Qvist, meteorological experts estimate that our planet has about three decades left before reaching the peak of the climate catastrophe.
Even though we can speed up the speed of wind or solar power plants, they are still unstable energy sources. Admittedly, these are all permanent energy sources, but they depend a lot on the weather conditions, in addition require too much surface.
And the solution encapsulates an energy source
Both scientists believe the answer is nuclear power – or nuclear power.
“What the world needs is carbon-free power generation that can be easily achieved on a large scale, providing a stable and reliable source of power in all conditions, without the need to expand. land area “- quotes Goldstein and Qvist on Futurism.
“Nuclear power meets these requirements.”
According to Goldstein and Qvist, the amount of waste from nuclear power is much less than from the coal and petroleum industries. “The amount of electricity that can be used by an American for a lifetime generates only the amount of waste that can fit in a can of soft drink.” – the two arguments. “It’s the only way to save the Earth.”
But the opinions of two experts can be the subject of much controversy, due to the consequences of nuclear energy. In reference to nuclear energy, names like Chernobyl or Fukushima will appear obsessively. The Japanese even thought about abandoning nuclear power plants, but not honestly.
Japan’s Fukushima power station explosion due to earthquake impact – tsunami still haunts Japanese people
So, in your opinion, is nuclear power the solution for Earth?
