Recently, I saw The Ideas Economy's website and posted 2 ideas that I thought it would be useful. One was to design modular mobile smart housing that acts as a self sustainable unit; and the other a kind of 'lead net' that covers the entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes.
It just came to me after reading and following up the number of natural and man-made disasters that seems to erupt in a short span of 3 years. Regardless if the Mayans had been right about 2012, we have to prepare for a definite real climate that is today and the near future.Highly populated areas, usually in cities, do not have much open space for escape. As such, I am thinking of the many possibilities of designing the units and the 'safety net'.
Climate change does not confine to the natural environment, about melting ice caps and the rise of sea levels. We are now facing another impending problem that is more instaneous and dire: terrorism. While we can add in rows of CCTVs, sending police and guard dogs to patrol at stations, airports, and sub stations; we must first eliminate any possible attack inland. For that reason alone, nuclear plants, oil rigs in danger points should be seriously considered for a permanent removal.The energy that we should use must be some form that we can contain in a much higher possibility. With the recent Fukushima Nuclear accident, signs are begining to show that the spread of radioactive pollution is going world wide. I think that is itself an expensive lesson to take and we have yet to see the full impact of the disaster.
I particularly liked the idea of solar energy. Many may not for the actual costs of producing them as compared to nuclear energy. But recently I have accidentally stumbled upon a paper by the late John O Blackburn, who wrote 'The Historic Crossover:Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy'.(see reference below)
I really wouldn't want to try nuclear in the long term given the change of climates now where there appears to be a rise in the number of earthquakes.Naturally people may doubt about statistics. Despite the nature of hard core research stats, we live under the sky to know what is really happening. Sometimes, a better trust is within us. Within me, myself, I do not believe that nuclear is the solution. It has never been. With the Fukushima Nuclear incident, I am more than adament to vote against nuclear energy. You know how the Japanese work. They are very merticulous and responsible people. If this could happen, I think its serious enough to make a resolution. -- Karen Fu, adapted from my own post to PhD forum.
Reference:
(A) The late John O. Blackburn, Duke University’s Professor Emeritus of
Economics and former Chancellor,
Solar and Nuclear Costs—The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now
the Better Buy’ http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=11407
Obituary of Dr John Blackburn, which reflects his personality:
http://news.duke.edu/2011/01/blackburn.html
Prof Blackburn's paper:
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
(B) Nuclear waste recycling problems:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
(C) Nuclear reactors in quake zones: http://tinyurl.com/4kxux8u
It just came to me after reading and following up the number of natural and man-made disasters that seems to erupt in a short span of 3 years. Regardless if the Mayans had been right about 2012, we have to prepare for a definite real climate that is today and the near future.Highly populated areas, usually in cities, do not have much open space for escape. As such, I am thinking of the many possibilities of designing the units and the 'safety net'.
Climate change does not confine to the natural environment, about melting ice caps and the rise of sea levels. We are now facing another impending problem that is more instaneous and dire: terrorism. While we can add in rows of CCTVs, sending police and guard dogs to patrol at stations, airports, and sub stations; we must first eliminate any possible attack inland. For that reason alone, nuclear plants, oil rigs in danger points should be seriously considered for a permanent removal.The energy that we should use must be some form that we can contain in a much higher possibility. With the recent Fukushima Nuclear accident, signs are begining to show that the spread of radioactive pollution is going world wide. I think that is itself an expensive lesson to take and we have yet to see the full impact of the disaster.
I particularly liked the idea of solar energy. Many may not for the actual costs of producing them as compared to nuclear energy. But recently I have accidentally stumbled upon a paper by the late John O Blackburn, who wrote 'The Historic Crossover:Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy'.(see reference below)
I really wouldn't want to try nuclear in the long term given the change of climates now where there appears to be a rise in the number of earthquakes.Naturally people may doubt about statistics. Despite the nature of hard core research stats, we live under the sky to know what is really happening. Sometimes, a better trust is within us. Within me, myself, I do not believe that nuclear is the solution. It has never been. With the Fukushima Nuclear incident, I am more than adament to vote against nuclear energy. You know how the Japanese work. They are very merticulous and responsible people. If this could happen, I think its serious enough to make a resolution. -- Karen Fu, adapted from my own post to PhD forum.
Reference:
(A) The late John O. Blackburn, Duke University’s Professor Emeritus of
Economics and former Chancellor,
Solar and Nuclear Costs—The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now
the Better Buy’ http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=11407
Obituary of Dr John Blackburn, which reflects his personality:
http://news.duke.edu/2011/01/blackburn.html
Prof Blackburn's paper:
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
(B) Nuclear waste recycling problems:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
(C) Nuclear reactors in quake zones: http://tinyurl.com/4kxux8u
0 comments:
Post a Comment