Hi Breathe,

I hope all is well.  I have just a couple of comments here on your reply.

1)  Do you know what is done with the waste, byproduct, that which is left after making nuclear chemicals usable? Do some research.

Nuclear energy IS the only logical option now instead of fossil fuels. Unlike the wind and sun, nuclear plants can produce high amounts of energy.

2)  I still believe that natural sources of energy ARE very feasible.  One of the problems today is that we spend way too much research on nuclear instead of natural methods for energy.  One very good example is the new hybrid cars which use 50+ % less gas and burns 10x cleaner with much much less emissions.  Another are flourescent lighting which uses 4x less wattage while producing the same light as those which use 4x the energy. These are only "a couple" of partial solutions and is the direction we need to go.  Nuclear waste has to go somewhere, and unless we take advantage of more natural sources.... consequences will be devasting and could endanger the entire planet.

Just my opinion :)

Regards

I totally agree with what you say about natural sources. I agree they are the best, I agree this would be the future, but we have to be realistic.

I firmly believe that on the contrary to nuclear energy, natural energy and extreme energy IS very realistic, if it is the emphasis.

Full transition to wind or sun energy is not gonna happen anytime soon. Chances are, it won't happen before we run out of oil & coal. We need to find a good short term solution to quickly save the planet.

While I agree that full transition to wind or sun energy will happen anytime soon, although I believe it could.  However, I am not saying that wind and solar should be the only source of energy as that is not completely practicle.  And nuclear is not a GOOD short term solution to "save the planet" and in fact, it may be what "destroys the planet!"

But truthfully

More research needs to be done.  But as I mentioned the new battery and gas engines with the new hybrid cars, they run not off solar or wind in fact, energy to run the battery engine comes from energy created and stored through the wheels turning and the force in appling breaks.  Further, having 10 times less emissions helps in addition - why don't we concentrate our energies into these directions as well?  Wind and solar are only "some" ways to use natural energy.

Other methods I mentioned is to great benefit I believe which is "energy conservation" as well.  I mentioned only 1 method in light bulbs that use 4 to 5 times less energy producing the same affect.  Imagine if billions of people used just a few energy conservation ideas. 

Responsible and conservative energy use could very well be accomplished and successful without nuclear, which causes cancers around the world.

In America, a man, not a scientist, has discovered a way for a car to run off of water! 

So I believe that we should be researching natural fuels further, put more money and effort into it (such as was done with hybrid cars) but till then, we have to accept that nuclear energy is the most viable option

Surely nuclear is an option, but it should not be the focus or direction, in my opinion. :)

A team of scientists have build a car in the past that ran on a combination of water and solar energy.  They managed to get this car to drive at a speed of approx 100 miles an hour.

This was more then a decade ago.

It is perfectly possible to put wind and solar energy into mass production tomorrow and to have ALL cars on the planet run on that energy within the next 10 years.

The problem is that the people in power with loads of money are boycotting this, because ALL their money comes from machinery and oil production.  Without it...  they are going down, every single one of them.

You can't ask people to pay for wind or sunlight. 

The technology is there.  It needs a little tweaking, but the essentials/basics are there.  It is ready to hit the research and development departments of every major industry to start up a project with as a goal to total transition to "alternative and clean fuel" for their factories etc.

OPEC would get a severe hit, as would all other industries that do business with them.  Even governments, who receive BIG bucks through taxes etc, are not really jumping to implement this wonderfull technology.

Hi MeAgain,

I agree with you 100% here.  And to add Oil is more and more of a comodity for profit as well.

But Bush has made some steps towards alternative energy and has given tax breaks to businesses and indivduals for using them.  I bought a hybrid Toyota Prius and was given a $2,000.00 tax break.

The ability and the sources are there.... it should become more mandatory and law though because the greedy oil companies fight most all energy conservation.   However, at least one gas/oil company in the USA is heading in that direction... probably because they don't want to be left out when the direction goes that way.

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=4520&contentId=7014704

Regards

and health should be first considered. :)

Regards