Just threw the question to the list, and I thought I might as well put it here as I am looking for answers.

'Happen to miss some important emails and now I ended up a living Owl.
I just answered Fil offlist and I thought it would be nice to ask the
list a few questions:

1. are we playing fire when we suggest that nuclear energy is containable ?
We can't even effectively control fire, something that is an ancient
fuel that we have been using
for millions of years. Forrest fires in the States and in Australia
are clear recent examples. They burned for
days with huge social costs.

2. Knowingly that nuclear energy is the most cost efficient and
therefore the attractiveness of making lots
of money is one strong advantage, at least from the commercial point
of view. And that natural resources like coal is depleting, offers
another point for Nuclear,  how about the cost of playing nuclear
energy which is tonnes more spontaneous than fire.
Can we be afford it? What is the safest nuclear plant design that
would contain possible accidents?
Reading the accidents and news daily, can we trust people to play god?
Or at least the master of something
that we cannot 100 percent contain?

3. What is the real benefit of having a nuclear plant? Why is it that
we cannot make other forms of energy cheap? Why has it got to be
nuclear? Sun is abundant source of energy in many parts of the world.
Why not tap and transfer this energy?

In all, why should it be all fission?

Hope this is taken in good candor.

I'm fully awake...
Karen Fu'

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change