Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should nuclear energy replace fossil fuels?
Nuclear energy should be used to replace fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy holds
much more potential
than fossil fuels in evolving through technological breakthroughs and increased efficiency.
Nuclear energy is a
Nuclear energy is more clean than fossil fuels.
The development of nuclear power station technology would probably produce other valuable technologies.
Nuclear power is
For countries that have few natural resources, nuclear energy is the best option.
There is still a need for more reliable and predictable energy sources that can complement renewable sources that vary too much. Currently, fossil fuels are used like that, so replacing them for nuclear (while renewable sources still develop) is a great way to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
Nuclear power is essential towards minimizing CO2 emissions. Nuclear need not be 100% of energy share but is capable of becoming exactly that.
Many nuclear power plants, located on rivers, lakes and seas using water as a cooler, which heats the water. After that they throw the water back into the river (lake/sea). That heats the river (lake/sea) and destroy the ecosystems there.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste which comes with numerous problems.
Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to attacks.
The elimination of fossil fuels would bring a loss of jobs in the industry.
Nuclear Energy is a
Renewable energy is a better option for replacing fossil fuels than nuclear.
is produced by Russian-affiliated states - making it vulnerable to being used as a geopolitical weapon.
There is a concern in nuclear reactor safety and potential disaster to stakeholders.
Rogue States and/or separatist forums can convert nuclear civilian energy projects to nuclear projects for war/warlike purpose thus posing a threat to others.
Do we need nuclear power for sustainable energy production?
Should governments push for 100% renewable energy?
Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?