Nuclear Power?

[alextemplet]

I think that's the point of converting not solely to agriculture but also to energy production and wildlife reserves. Although, if we wanted to live underground, we could harness geothermal energy and take an additional burden off of the surface. I think it's a great idea in theory, but good luck trying to sell it to the public.

[AstusAleator]

What's the book where the world has gone into an ice-age or is otherwise messed up to the point where people have to live underground, close to geothermal zones? I think I read it when I was a kid... only vague memories.

[mith]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970411/

[alextemplet]

I've never heard of it, but it sounds interesting.

[mith]

http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=246

long article but interesting

[mcar]

I have watched an article about the opal mining in Australia, and how the people had also tried living and making new homes underground. The minerals were so precious that it works for their living. The world has really so much to offer but what will happen if the time comes that she would say, "I have nothing to give anymore".

[AstusAleator]

I think I'll volunteer to be a space explorer when they finally want to send people out to populate colonies. So what if I'm 99 or 150 years old

[alextemplet]

It'd be a great way to get the heck away from Earth.

[mcar]

Have you heard of Hard Green? it agrees on the advantage of nuclear energy, it's more greener at the same time. Although I am trying to think still of the negative impacts of nuclear wastes on the long run, if ever the wastes are not properly contained or maintained. We have a nuclear power plant in our country but it isn't operating still. Concerned individuals and some private organizations have shown disagreement toward this hard power.

[NatureTalk]

Good discussion.

We have to balance various risks.

Nuclear energy accidents. And nuclear waste. What is more arrogant than creating toxic waste that will be a threat to at least hundreds of succeeding generations?

On the other hand, the risk of global war over dwindling fossil fuel supplies, a war that might be conducted with nuclear weapons.

Imho, the most significant threat to the environment is nuclear weapons. Nothing else, except perhaps an asteroid collision, can create so much damage in such a small period of time.

Is it politically possible to both energize the population against nuclear weapons, while encouraging them to support nuclear power, at the same time. Don't know, sounds tricky.