Despite its low cost and high rate of energy production, nuclear energy is the bane of environmental groups the world over, but is it really that bad?
Firstly, it produces very little CO2, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere.
it also produces large amounts of power for relatively little space. An average nuclear power planet produces approximately 12.4 billion kwh a year - that is the equivalent of 35,428 Wind turbines. It is no wonder that nuclear energy produces 30 percent of the world's power and 20 percent of America's.
With increasing pressure on companies and governments to reduce their CO2 output, nuclear energy is an increasingly popular option, especially with scientists stating that emissions should be cut by 70 percent by 2050 to avert a major environmental disaster.
There have been a lot of reports in the press about countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom eager to increase their number of nuclear power stations and unsurprisingly, nuclear energy firms have been eager to see it labelled as a form of 'Renewable energy', eager to be allowed the same subsidies and friendly policies offered to clean energies like wind, solar and biomass.
The thing is that despite the obvious benefits, the risk of a nuclear meltdown is ever present. Not just that, but nuclear waste, created from power production, remains radioactive enough to be a threat to humans and the environment for at least 10,000 years.
Also, despite the high cost of solar and wind farms, the cost to maintain nuclear powers stations is still relativity expensive. The continual exposure to the levels or radiation found inside a nuclear reactor are taxing on the construction materials causing rapid deterioration, leaving many nuclear power plants in constant need of upgrading or retirement.
At the end of the day, no matter what your feelings are on renewable sources of energy, you're unlikely to get another Chernobyl from a wind farm.
