Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stewart Brand at a 2010 debate, "Does the world need nuclear energy?" [31]At the 1963 ground-breaking for what would become the world's largest nuclear power plant, President John F. Kennedy declared that nuclear power was a "step on the long road to peace," and that by using "science and technology to achieve significant breakthroughs", we could "conserve the resources" to leave the world in ...
The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral. It has never been clearer that, for peace to flourish, all people need to lay down the weapons of war, and especially the most powerful and destructive of weapons: nuclear arms that can cripple and destroy whole cities, whole countries.
Nuclear energy and renewable energy have reduced environmental costs by decreasing CO 2 emissions resulting from energy consumption. [2] There is a catastrophic risk potential if containment fails, [3] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the ...
Nuclear proliferation is a related concern, which most commonly refers to the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries and increases the risks of nuclear war arising from regional conflicts. The diffusion of nuclear technologies -- especially the nuclear fuel cycle technologies for producing weapons-usable nuclear materials such as ...
Just 22% agreed that "nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants". In contrast, 71% thought their country "could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind".
Patrick Moore's position on forests, nuclear energy, and more have consistently gone against those of the majority of Greenpeace staff. [1] Phil Radford disputes Moore by claiming that the U.S. does not need nuclear energy. [2] [3] Early Greenpeace member Patrick Moore, is a critic of the organization. [4]
A pragmatic need for secure energy supply is a leading reason for many to support nuclear energy. Many people, including former opponents of nuclear energy, now say that nuclear energy is necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. They recognize that the threat to humanity from climate change is far worse than any risk associated with ...
Major anti-nuclear power groups include Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Sortir du nucléaire (France). Several countries, especially European countries, have abandoned the construction of new nuclear power plants. [ 15 ]