The everlasting debate

Another debate about the future of nuclear energy, but now based on the tragedy in Japan and the reactions of different countries on this issue like Ben mentioned in his post. William Tucker, advocate of nuclear energy, and Damon Moglan, friend of the earth, play the two sides in this debate.

William Tucker defends the use of nuclear energy and tries to appease the people, the community. I think this man knows very well it’s difficult to succeed. His main argument is that the nuclear reactors in Japan withstood a major disaster very well, especially with its old design. Of course this is something where people can ask the question:” why wasn’t it replaced or why no better design?”

After that this discussion gets a bit out of hand. I think that mister Damon Moglan like other environment organizations again exploit the situation in Japan or Chernobyl to support their arguments.

Alternative energy like solar and wind are safe, but when is it able to compete against nuclear energy technology to provide the necessary energy? ( a question which we asked ourselves alot in this blog) I think nuclear energy is improving faster than the alternative energy and you know it will provide for your electricity every day. The other countries don’t have the choice for closing their plants.

We see that nature can surprise us and it has caused a disaster for nuclear energy and Japan. But think about this; imagine there will be large wind parks and solar sites, don’t you think they can also suffer the wrath and change of nature?

I think the discussion will last forever. There will always be a large group against nuclear energy, even when they are currently getting their electricity  from nuclear plants, and we have those who feel safe about the future of this technology.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The everlasting debate

  1. Tristan,

    I really enjoyed to see the discussion between the two parties, but on the other hand it makes you think of a few things. What really caught my eye was that the con side in these discussions always say that people need green energy instead of nuclear energy. What they fail to say every time is which green energy source they want to build, and when they will start to make these green plants.

    You also mention this in your post, and I agree 100% with you: ‘…but when is it able to compete against nuclear energy technology to provide the necessary energy?

    Everyone is so against nuclear energy, but there are only theoretical solutions. When are the nay sayers going to take action!!

    Convince the yay sayers in practice not on paper!

  2. TristanBruggeman says:


    I’m happy you agree with my line of thought. The con side really lack in good arguments beside the “disasters” nuclear energy can cause and have caused. Recently I read in the “New York Times” more people voted no against nuclear energy, obviously their vote is based on fear after the incident in Japan.

    I think a really good solution for the pro side, the nuclear engineers and specialists is to organize seminars about nuclear energy and show how it works. People have fear for the unknown and need to understand it better. The word “nuclear” has a negative reinforcement nowadays; this fact need to be lifted.

    I’m just thinking about the seminar we had 2 years ago about genetic manipulation. The speaker also had some negative comments on the goals of his company, but when the people had a strike in front of his company, he took his lab staff outside and explained the people what they did inside their labs. This idea had a positive outcome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s