Fukushima Reopened The Debate on The Safety of The Plants

The nuclear disaster at Fukushima reopened for business in Europe and the rest of the globe the debate on how safe are nuclear plants, and also about how to get more energy in a world which, it is worth the redundancy increasingly needs energy to … live.
There is a point that should not dodge: there is no progress or a better quality of life without power. That type of energy is another matter. And probably many argue that the best option remains nuclear despite all the “Chernobyls” and “Fukushimas”, past and future.
Nuclear energy, in comparison with other resources, remains a real option.
For Chile, Jorge Zanelli, the center for Scientific Research of Chile and former adviser on atomic in the management of Michelle Bachelet, “nuclear energy is the surest and most clean” . Said during a forum on energy challenges in the Americas, in the city of Miami, and reasons for your bet: nuclear energy – sentenced – “it is better that the hydropower, wind, emits no greenhouse gases and is cheaper than solar”.
Consulted on some of the disadvantages that represents this resource as, for example, their waste pollutants, the chilean specialist felt that while “this is a serious matter”, the “quantities of nuclear waste are small and are little radioactive”. AND advised worry more about “pollution in coal plants”.
It is true that the atomic contribution in Latin America is low. Only Mexico, Brazil and Argentina have nuclear plants.
And only 0.9 % of the latin american energy is based on the atom compared to 15% for Europe with 148 nuclear reactors.
The debate on that energy matrix should implement Europe in the post Fukushima falls at a crossroads if the plan for the future is to achieve more gigawatts and CO2 emissions.
The Old Continent is divided. Germany has decided to abandon the atomic energy by 2022. Italy opted via referendum not to return to resort to the atom, abandoned in 1987 after Chernobyl.
France, the country most dependent on nuclear power in the world (75 %) with 58 reactors own, obviously, does not share the vision. He said the premier François Fillon: “nuclear energy is a solution for the future. There is no other that allow them to comply with European commitments” of emission limitation of greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is still no alternative and renewable energy sufficiently developed to enable it to replace nuclear power. The more idealistic imagine a planet spinning through the force of the energy of sun, trapped in small chips, hidden until in the clothes. But the suspicion is that this is why we will have to wait a little more.
I hope you liked it!