World News Headlines

Coverage of breaking stories

Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true? a) Nuclear energy cannot be...

source :

Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true? a) Nuclear energy cannot be…

Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true?

a) Nuclear energy cannot be contained nor controlled.

b) Nuclear energy is contained in nuclear bonds.

c) Nuclear energy is less efficient than other energy forms.

d) All of the above are true.

Which of the following is a non - renewable energy source?

Which of the following is a non – renewable energy source? – Use of both of them causes pollution. Fossil fuel cause oil spills, acid rain, air pollution, water pollution etc. Nuclear energy may give rise to radiation Renewable resources of energy include biomass energy and some forms of inexhaustible energy like solar energy, hydro power, wind power etc.c) Nuclear energy is less efficient than other energy forms. d) All of the above are true. Can you solve the following? Answered. 28 May 2020.Nuclear is bad for the environment. Both statements are true. Why is it good? Prof Jim Watson, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, told BBC News: "Most analysts now have accepted that we don't need 30% of energy from nuclear – renewables can take a substantially bigger share.

Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true? – Task 2 (4 points). Decide which of the following statements are true (1), false (2) or not stated (3) according to the text. Graffiti is a serious problem in modern and dangerous. People are afraid to use the subway. To stop this social "disease", many towns have organised "graffiti walls" – special places…Second most important pros of nuclear energy is the fuel characteristics. Thermal power stations require large quantities of fuel, for example, coal. The water used in the first contour has minimum contact with water of the second contour. All the equipment that contact with the radioactive zones…That water energy can be harnessed to perform work by using waterwheels. Running or falling water turns the wheel. The turning wheel spins an axle which can be attached to machinery to As the use of alternative energy sources increases, the consumption of the earth's fossil fuels will also decrease.

Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true?

Climate change: Is nuclear power the answer? – BBC News – 31) Which of the following statements about inclusion is true? 5) Answers will vary but should include information about the inaccurate and biased identification process, cultural incongruity between the majority of teachers and diverse student populations, and a curriculum not effective for some…Which of the following statements about nuclear energy is true? Nuclear energy is contained in nuclear bonds. What happens to the heat that is produced from fission reactions that occur in nuclear power plants? It is used to turn water into steam. Control rods are used to slow down the reaction in…Used nuclear fuel is very toxic. People tend to keep it under water or bury it deep under the ground in special containers. The list of environmental problems also includes growth of population, shortage of food and fresh water in some parts of the world, destruction of wildlife and many others.

Earth Sciences Archive | June 16, 2018 |
For question 12 use the following picture 12 What element ...
For question 12 use the following picture 12 What element ...
SCI201 Water Cycle.docx - week 1 Water Cycle Which one of ...
Chemistry Archive | April 05, 2017 |
8.08 Module Eight Exam Honors.docx - 1 Radioactive ...
SCI115 Milestone 1.docx - 1 When solute concentration is ...
The Calvin Cycle for CO 2 fixation uses most of the same ...
Why Do We Need Insulating Materials? | Heat Insulation And ...
Current Affairs March 2017 INDIAN AFFAIRS 1. Narendra ...
Energy Conversions

Green New Deal: Fact versus Fiction – This to me is an existential crisis.
The green generation has risen up. You are talking about zero carbon emissions, no use of fossil fuels? That is the goal. That's a goal, you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how the energy economy works or how energy is produced in this country. James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics, says the Green New Deal is just not feasible. Renewable is especially hard because it's so inconsistent. Because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. You can't just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You also have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers possibly very far away, and you always need some kind of backup power. That means many more transmission lines, and bigger batteries to store more energy. You have to mine all these materials for the batteries and those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous. Batteries are a lousy way to store energy. Physicist Mark Mills says the ingredients to green energy, like battery packs, are anything but green. You have to consume a 100 barrels of oil's worth of energy in China to make that battery pack. I have to dig up a 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging up is done with oil, by the way, big machines, so we're consuming energy to quote, save energy. It's not a good path to go. He calls the so-called "New Energy Economy" magical thinking. Wind and solar and batteries now are 10 times better than they were. And then they stopped getting better because they hit physics limits. You have to believe in kind of magical materials to get 10 times better again. In comic books we have that I can fly Tony Stark has that magic power source. Can do things that are unimaginable today, but we know that the physics make it impossible to make solar 10 times better again. We should also make sure we're spending money on stuff that really works. And right now, we're doubling down on technologies like wind and solar, that have their place, but they're not going to get the job done by themselves. But that's where all the money's going. Solyndra was granted a 34.5 billion dollar subsidy. Billions in subsidies… but solar still makes up less than 1% of America’s energy, and wind just 2%. And none of that energy is really “clean.” We use billions of tons of hydrocarbons to make the number of windmills that are already in the world and we've only just begun to make them at the level people claim they would like to have them to be built. If you pursue a path of wind, solar, and batteries, we increase how much we dig up and move by 100 to a 1,000 fold. There's a magical thinking that there's somehow a free lunch. If I pick this energy source, it doesn't do anything, it doesn't emit anything, it doesn't consume anything. This isn't comic book land. Every energy source, of energy, every kind, uses land, uses materials to make the technology and always uses hydrocarbon along the way. Of course, we don’t see that when we look at, say… wind turbines [Wind turbines] They're beautiful. The gleaming blades. They take enormous amounts of land. You gotta clear cut the forest. These machines kill a lot of birds. I agree that we should bring down our carbon emissions. There's the global warming risk. There's also the risk that the oceans become more acidic and start killing off the plankton. But we should also make sure we're spending money on stuff that really works. Why are we making electric cars? Are electric cars what “really works?” Electric cars are great for the environment. If we just switched to electric cars we’d use less fossil fuels. How do you make electricity? Coal, and natural gas. Yeah. Fossil fuels. Yeah. Exactly. Many electric car buyers don’t realize that most of America’s electricity comes from coal and natural gas. [sounds] People think they're doing something wonderful buying a Prius. They're basically burning coal and natural gas from the shale fields. But electric cars will get a lot better? Sure they will. I'll make the windmills a little better and they'll get cheaper. Solar arrays will get cheaper. The problem isn’t that they’ll get a little better, a little better is not enough. They can never get 10 times better. But there is one energy source that produces LOTS of power, with no carbon emissions. Nuclear power. Nuclear is the best answer we have right now. These plants have been around since the 1960s. They work well, they're safe. There has been an explosion at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. SAFE? Fukushima helps prove how safe nuclear power really is. No one was killed. People were killed during the evacuation. The fear of radiation is what killed people. They evacuated a lot of older people out of nursing homes and apartments that really didn't need to go. One of the atomic reactors at the Chernobyl atomic power plant in the city of Kyiv was damaged. Chernobyl was worse. We don’t truly know exactly how many people died from radiation as a result of Chernobyl. The plant design was idiotically bad. Reporters said that thousands of people living near Chernobyl would die. It is not considered fit for human habitation. Thousands of cancer deaths. She's wrong about that. The rates of thyroid cancer did go up, but nothing, not even remotely in the range of what was forecast. Those radiation limits are set extremely conservatively. But the word nuclear frightens politicians. There are just 50 people standing between Japan and nuclear catastrophe. All this talk about nuclear catastrophe reveals that people don't really understand how these plants work. They're not bombs. A dam breaks, and hundreds of thousands of people probably die. Nuclear plants, their safety ironically is actually evident in their accidents. More people have died falling off of roofs installing solar panels than in the entire history of nuclear power in the US. And yet, from these accidents, countries all over the world are shutting down nuclear plants. People aren't stupid, but they are vulnerable to fear. Germany says it will give up nuclear energy within a decade. Germany foolishly shut down a lot of their nuclear plants. So what did they wind up doing instead? They wound up burning more coal. France, on the other hand, gets more than 70% of its power from nuclear energy. They pay some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe and their emissions are excellent. But now in America, many people demand that nuclear plants be shut down. In Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont, they shut down their one nuclear plant. Guess what happened? Their carbon emissions went up. So, this supposedly green state, ultra-liberal Vermont, actually went backwards. These efforts at great expense buy literally nothing. We have to get to a 100% renewable energy in 10 years. They want to impoverish all of humanity today to solve a putative problem in the future. I think that's immoral. If the Green New Dealers win, who's hurt the most? Poor people. Having energy and food cost more means it's a higher percentage of the household budget, that's who we hurt. We're charging more for people who can't afford it and we give money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy 100,000 dollar cars, to put expensive solar arrays on their roof, or to be investors in wind farms. So we have an upside down Robin Hood going on in our country to the tunes of 10s and 100s of billions of dollars. That's a bad deal. So the Green New Deal, even if it were scientifically possible, would hurt the poor, cost everyone more, and make energy less reliable, Yet it’s popular. Majority of Americans support the idea. that includes 64 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats. Polls show majority of Americans support the idea. People support all kinds of things that sound good. I mean, I would support free apple pie for everyone, but whatever policies we put in place to protect the planet, your first responsibility is to make sure they work. .

Issues & Attitudes: Risks of Nuclear Power Plants – Part 6 – (Mr.
That evacuation plan is actually what we spend the most amount
of time actually practicing and the Chief hit the nail
on the head, which is, through the mutual aid systems
that we have throughout the state of Illinois, that's
exactly what we drill. It's what we would
need to do because you can only educate
the public so much. At a certain point it actually
takes the involvement of your public safety entities, whether
it's fire, EMT, or police. Those are the people that we
train on a regular basis and we have very, very
detailed evacuation plans for every area of the state. (Dr. Collins).
Okay, thank you. And let's move to
Chief Goodwin, who has offered some really
valuable information. I wanted him to have a moment
to make a closing statement, sir, before we move on. (Mr. Goodwin).
We have a specialized team for this part of the state
as far as HAZMAT and technical rescue but as
far as HAZMAT, if we do get into the nuclear side of
it, my second phone call is going to be to IEMA
for their assistance because they're the
experts in it. But as far as the evacuation,
we talked about that. Charleston, we have an
evacuation plan in place, so we try to prepare
for everything. What's going to
happen, who knows, but we try to prepare for
the worst that we know of. (Dr. Collins).
Thank you, sir. Dr. Daniels. (Dr. Daniels).
Radiation is something that you can't see, you can't
smell, you can't feel, but the key to
protecting yourself and understanding the whole thing is
learning and education and we need to understand, have the
masses understand, exactly what the dangers are and
exactly how bad they are or how not so bad they are. (Dr. Collins).
Okay, great, thank you. Professor Craig. (Mr. Craig).
Nuclear plants are necessary and they're very efficient–more
efficient than wind power and solar panels and so it's
necessary, but again education and understanding what to do in the event of a
situation is needed. (Dr. Collins).
Great and Mr. Monken. (Mr. Monken).
Really what I'd like to really just kind of say about
what we have in Illinois is that I think the citizens of
Illinois should be extremely proud of the system that
we actually have here. In many respects, it's unique
nationally and unique globally. Representatives from 22
countries, including Japan, have been to
Illinois to see how we do our nuclear
safety program. While it is really the best in
the country– incredibly well developed and really better than
anything anyone else has– we always have to
see these disasters as an opportunity to
improve our plans. There's never a finish line. There's never a point at which
we are done making our plans– how we're going to evacuate
people, what types of scenarios we need to be prepared
for–and that's what these types of events, that's why they're
so important to us is that we have to take a look
back, rework our plans and make sure that everything is
as accurate as it can be. (Dr. Collins).
Okay, that's wonderful. I wanted to also add to the
education aspect–it is important to be educated and I'm
so happy, happy and pleased to see everyone here who wanted
to come out and ask questions and hear some of the answers
and actually continue and participate
in the dialogue. I also want to mention
April 28, right? IEMA is having the Great
Central U.S. Shakeout– getting prepared
for earthquakes. That's going to be going on. 60,000 Illinois residents
have already registered to participate in an
earthquake drill, so we're really
pleased about that. So that's one part of
getting educated. Another part of getting educated
is having guests such as Professor Craig–thank you
so much for being here; Mr. Monken–thank
you so much; Dr. Daniels and Chief Goodwin, thank you so much
for being here. [unclear audio]. (Dr. Collins).
You're watching "Issues and Attitudes", thank you
everyone, for coming, "Nuclear Safety in Illinois". Have a great evening
and goodnight. ♪ [music playing–
no dialogue] ♪♪. .

Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia – 譯者: Rubik Cheng
審譯者: Amanda Chu 謝謝你們 當我還小的時候 父母時常會帶我去加州露營 沙灘、森林或沙漠等各種地方都有 有些人說沙漠沒有生命存在 但我的父母要我去觀察
這些圍繞在四周的野生動物: 隼、老鷹或陸龜等等 有一次我們在紮營時 發現了一隻蠍子寶寶露出牠的螫刺 當下我心想,真是太酷了 怎麼會有這麼可愛
卻又這麼危險的東西 大學畢業後,我搬到加州 著手進行一些環境相關的活動計畫 參與了拯救全美
最後一座紅杉森林的工作 並阻止在沙漠中設置
放射性廢棄物的存放區 剛滿 30 歲後不久 我決定要窮盡一生 去解決氣候變遷的問題 我擔心全球暖化 終會摧毀人們竭力
所保護的各種自然環境 要解決這個問題
我認為在技術面很單純 在所有的屋頂裝上太陽能板
電動車的普及等 最大的問題是在政策上 因此我協助全國最大的勞工工會
以及最大的環保團體共同組織聯盟 我們的提案是 3000 億美元的
再生能源投資計畫 抱持的理念不只是預防氣候變遷 而且能在一個快速發展的高科技領域 創造上百萬個工作機會 在 2007 年,我們的努力有了成果 當時的總統候選人
巴拉克·歐巴馬接受了我們的願景 在 2009 及 2015 年之間 美國在再生能源等潔淨能源技術上
投資了 1500 億美元 但一開始,我們就遇到一些問題 第一,屋頂太陽能板發電的
電力成本是太陽能發電廠的兩倍 且太陽能和風力發電廠 都需要極大面積的土地
來設置太陽能板及風機 並建置龐大的電力傳輸系統 以便將電力從鄉村送去都市 這些事情往往受到當地社區 以及保育生物學家的強烈抵制 他們擔心野生鳥類
及其他動物會受到迫害 當時很多人在技術方面
努力解決這個問題 很大的一個挑戰是太陽能
及風力發電的間歇特性 它們一年只有 10%
到 30% 的時間在發電 不過還是有一些提案 像是把大壩當作一個巨大的電池 意思是當太陽露出、當風在吹時 馬達會把水打到高處儲存 當你需要電力時
再這些水送入渦輪發電機組 談到野生動物
問題似乎不那麼令人擔心 家貓每年會殺死數十億隻鳥 相比只有幾十萬隻鳥因風機而死 這時我在想 在大規模化太陽能及風力發電時 那些問題大部分都能以
未來的先進技術來解決 但幾年過去了 這些問題仍然存在,且越演越烈 加州非常致力於再生能源的發展 但將水壩改造為大型電池的計畫中 落成的數量不多 有些只是地理位置上的問題 水壩必須有符合條件的
地形才能改造 即使能夠符合條件 仍要很多的資金來實現 更不用說還有其他問題
像是灌溉等用水的需求 或許最嚴重的問題是 加州河川和水庫的水 因為氣候變遷的緣故
越來越稀缺又不穩定 為了不讓穩定性影響整體發電系統 我們必須將太陽能發電廠
產出的電停止輸送到城市 因為現在實在是太多了 或是花錢請亞歷桑納等鄰近的州
來消耗我們多餘的太陽能電力 否則會造成電網超載,無法供電 說到鳥和家貓 貓並不會傷害老鷹,但老鷹會殺害貓 貓殺的是體型小且常見的
麻雀、松鴉和知更鳥 這些鳥並不會有絕種的可能 老鷹及大型鳥類 像是齒鷹、貓頭鷹和禿鷹
和其他遭受威脅及瀕臨絕種的物種 才是風力發電機殺害的鳥類 對這些大型鳥類來說
風機是最大的威脅之一 近年設置風力機組之前 我們從來沒有在天空上放這麼多東西 而說到太陽能 建置太陽能發電廠就像是建置農場 必須騰出大片土地
清走其中的野生動物 這是加州最大的太陽能發電廠之一
照片拍到的只是它的 1/3 ── 艾文帕太陽能發電廠 為了建置這發電廠 他們必須清走整個區域的沙漠陸龜 直接把沙漠陸龜和小陸龜拖出洞穴 放到卡車中,運到圈養地 許多就死在那裡 近期估計每年約有
6000 隻鳥被殺害 牠們在太陽能電廠的上方著火 墜地而死 隨著時間的過去,我漸漸意識到 任何技術發展 都不可能讓陽光穩定照射
讓風不斷地吹 你只能把太陽能板變便宜 你只能讓風機變得更大 而陽光和風力就是這麼的沒效率 而為了產出足夠用的電力 你必須使用大面積的土地 換句話說,再生能源的
主要問題都不在技術面 是在自然環境面 要處理這些不穩定的問題 以及這些環境的巨大衝擊 明顯的要付出很大的經濟代價 近幾年我們已經聽到太多 太陽能板及風力機組價格下降的消息 但要把所有不穩定的
發電系統整合到電網上 花費仍然很可觀 從加州的情況即可見一斑 在太陽能板和風力機組
價錢大幅下降之際 我們所看見的反而是電費漲價幅度
比國內其他地區多了 5 倍 這不是我們才有的問題 你可以看到相同的狀況發生在德國 德國在太陽能、風力及其他
再生能源科技方面可說是世界龍頭 在大力推動再生能源後
他們的電價上漲了 50% 你可能會想,對抗氣候變遷 我們就必須在能源上花費更多 我以前也是這麼想的 但看看法國的例子 以潔淨的零排放發電量來說 法國是德國的兩倍 但電價幾乎是德國的一半 這是如何做到的? 你們可能已經猜出答案了 法國有 75% 的電力來自核能 核能比再生能源可靠許多 且每天 24 小時
每周 7 天都在發電 一年有 90% 的時間在運轉 我們看到這個現象在全球各地發生 舉例來說 有個為期 40 多年的自然實驗法研究 針對核能和太陽能的運用做比較 顯示太陽能和風力發電
使用比核能稍高的成本 發電量卻只有核能的一半 這意味著我們應該如何走下去? 我認爲截至目前最重大的發現是: 如果德國當時把 5800 億美元的經費
用以發展核能,而非再生能源 現在他們 100% 的電力
以及所有交通運輸的能源 都會是潔淨能源 你們可能會問一個很合理的問題: 核能安全嗎?
你要如何處理核廢料? 這些都是非常合理的疑問 這裡有個超過 40 年的
科學研究結果 最近一次的研究 是由英國的權威醫學雜誌
《刺胳針》進行 他們發現核能是最安全的 這不難理解 世界衛生組織表示 一年約有 7 百萬人死於空氣污染 核能不會造成空污 氣候科學家詹姆士·漢森計算出 到目前為止,核能已經
拯救了近兩百萬條人命 連風力發電也比核能更致命 這張照片中是荷蘭的兩位維修工人 拍照後事隔不久,其中一位
為了躲避火燒而墜落身亡 另一位則是被大火吞沒 對環境的影響呢? 我認爲有一個非常簡單的方法能理解 鈾是核電廠的能量來源 它的能量密度非常高 像這顆魔術方塊一樣大小的鈾 即可產生你一生需要的所有能源 結論是,大量發電
不需要這麼大面積的土地 你可以將我剛提到的
艾文帕太陽能電廠 和加州最後一座核電廠──
代亞布羅峽谷電廠作比較 為了產出相同的電力 太陽能電廠比核電廠
多花了 450 倍的土地面積 你需要增加 17 座
像艾文帕的太陽能電廠 發電量才會
與代亞布羅峽谷核電廠相同 此外,太陽能還會降低發電的可靠性 如果從原料採集、廢料
和材料吞吐量的角度來看呢? 這也有被充分的研究過 結果是 太陽能板所需的材料
比核電廠多出 17 倍 這些材料包含
水泥、玻璃、混凝土、金屬 所有核電廠所需的燃料也包含在內 到頭來,經過整個發電流程 核電所產出的廢棄物並不多 這個房間可以容得下
瑞士核電計畫產出的所有廢棄物 核廢料是核能發電的唯一廢棄物 它被安全地保存
沒有額外的社會成本 其他方式所產生的電力 排放出的廢棄物都進入了大自然 這些可能是污染物或固體廢棄物 我們以為太陽能發電很乾淨 但事實是我們沒有任何計劃 來處理 20 或 25 年後的
廢棄太陽能板 許多專家都非常擔心太陽能板
會連同電子產品廢棄物 一起被運往貧窮的
非洲或亞洲國家進行拆解 工作人員將接觸到
大量的危害性有毒元素 包含鉛、鎘和鉻 因為它們是元素,毒性永遠不會降解 我想我們心裡都知道 核能真是個很強大的能源 太陽光很分散又微弱 這也就是為什麼
我們需要有這麼大的面積 來收集太陽光和風 最近的新版《銀翼殺手》科幻片中 一開場就是一個灰暗的後末日景象 加州的沙漠完全被太陽能板覆蓋 沒有人會對這一幕感到驚訝 我想,這一切讓我們
不禁要提出一個令人不安的問題: 為了拯救氣候,我們要毀掉環境嗎? 有趣的是,過去幾百年的時間 人類其實試著要淘汰
所謂的高物質密度燃料 而轉移到高能量密度的燃料 比如說,從木材、動物乾糞
轉換到煤、石油、天然氣、鈾 這是自古以來的現象 有些貧窮國家目前
才逐漸在淘汰木材、乾糞燃料 大致來說,這是件好事 當你停止使用木材作為燃料來源 森林有機會重新生長
野生動物才得以回歸大自然 當你停止在家裡燒木材 你不需要再吸入這些有毒氣體 當你開始使用煤、石油、天然氣和鈾
作為能源的主要來源 徹底消除空氣汙染的
潛在契機就會出現 核能有個問題 大部分人都欣然接受
從污染性能源轉換成潔淨能源 以及從低能量密度
轉換成高能量密度能源 核能卻因為許多歷史因素
而非常不受歡迎 結果,過去我和很多人可能都說過 「為了解決氣候變遷 各種潔淨能源都必須派上用場。」 問題是,這並不正確 記得嗎?我先前提到法國 法國使用核能來得到大部分的電力 如果法國增加太陽能
及風力發電的規模 他們就必須大幅減少核能的發電量 原因在於,為了要讓電網能應付
變數較大的太陽能及風力發電 他們需要使用更多的天然氣 你要這樣想: 核電廠的電力輸出
很難隨時機動地控制 但電網的管理像是控制瓦斯爐火大小 可隨時開關調整 石油、天然氣公司當然都很明白這點 我們都看到他們近年投資數百萬美元
來推動太陽能和風力發電 這又引出了另一個具挑戰性的問題: 在使用大量核能的地方 核能和水力發電
提供了電網的一半電力 若往太陽能或風力等
其他再生能源發展的話 事實上會增加碳排放量 我想最好的方式是把真相說出來 這也是許多科學家正在做的事情 我稍早提到的 每年有數十萬隻鳥因風機而死 我沒有提到的是每年
至少有百萬隻蝙蝠被風機殺害 已經有許多蝙蝠研究人員
提出這樣的結果 特別是這種灰蓬毛蝠 牠是一種遷徙性的蝙蝠 因為那些不斷擴建的風力機組 正在面臨絕種的危機 不只是風力,太陽能也是 那些曾參與興建
艾文帕太陽能電廠的科學家 以及執行初期整地的人都站了出來 他們之中有人寫道: 「每個人都知道要替沙漠陸龜
找新家是不可能的 當你走在推土機面前 邊哭邊把動物們及仙人掌清開時 你就很難認同這個計畫。」 而現在我們可以
在世界各地看見這些現象 在我的家鄉加州 我們把大量天然氣埋存在山邊 來補償不穩定的太陽能及風力發電 但發生了漏氣事件 洩漏的天然氣相當於 50 萬輛汽車
在壽命內所排放的廢氣 最近在德國 有些抗議者試著阻撓
新的煤礦開採計畫 這將摧毀漢巴赫古森林 只為了得到更多的煤礦 這一切都是為了廢核
及擴展太陽能及風力發電 好消息是 人們仍然在乎我們的自然環境
並且重視這些現象 去年在南韓 公民陪審團為了
權衡這些不同問題的輕重 審議了好幾個月 他們必須決定是否要廢核 還是要繼續使用,並擴大規模 剛開始他們有 40% 的人
支持擴大核能規模 經過幾個月後的考量評估 最終投票結果
支持者的票數占 60% 就在上週,相同的現象
發生在亞利桑那州 選民進行公民投票 來決定是否要繼續使用核能 或以天然氣及太陽能取代核能 結果拒絕廢核以 70 比 30 勝出 而在歐洲,我們看到荷蘭
是幾個首先行動的國家之一 他們於上周宣布 要開始加重仰賴核能發電的比例 因為他們認知到無法從太陽能
和風力獲得足夠的能源 來達到所承諾的減碳目標 我們越來越在意像氣候變遷
這麼大的環境議題時 會想藉由再生能源
讓人類文明與自然環境和諧共處 用這種浪漫的方式解決問題
是很自然的一種傾向 但我認為事實就擺在眼前 很多人開始質疑過去的信念
並改變了想法 對我來說,現在的問題是 既然已經知道再生能源不能拯救地球 我們仍要繼續這樣摧殘她嗎? 謝謝 (掌聲) .