9/10/2010
2:44
Germen chancellor, Angela Merkel, made the decision to extend usage of nuclear power plants for a average of another 12 years and claimed it as a “"revolution in energy provision". There is a common censuses of a large about of people who don’t agree with this new agreement that Merkel pushed forward with. She argues is that this project will “aid it embracing of renewable energy that she had agreed to keep nuclear power plants running for longer. She also claims nuclear power would be a "bridge" that would allow more time for reliable and affordable technologies to be developed.”She ended by saying that these nuclear plants will also contribute to the renewable energy investment fund which is also in the agreement that she created. Countries surrounding Germany like Austria looked down at the decision calling it a “disappointment" and a "retrograde step" for energy policy, where around the world many countries are in the process of moving forward to the more popular more efficient product of renewable resources. Austrian environment minister Nikolaus Berlakovich, commented on the subject by saying, "What's clear is that atomic energy is no answer to climate change and no sustainable way in which to reduce CO2 emissions.”, making all the negative effects of nuclear power plants evident.
Kate Connolly the author of this article hit really great point by writing about all of the different aspects of the argument, whether it was from the public thoughts about the subject to politicians to the Germen chancellor herself. What I felt would have made this article a touch stronger is if Connolly would have gotten into the mind of the public to explain why their positions of not agreeing with this agreement. I personally believed Germany being such a large country in Europe set forward a ugly foot in the movement all countries are trying to avoid. Hopefully later with the power of the Green Party in Germany they can change this agreement or better eliminate it making Merkel realize that renewable energy is what she really need to push forward with.
2 comments:
I think that this decision can have two outcomes that is good and bad. Its good because nuclear energy emits a relatively low amount of carbon dioxide. It can also be bad because it can increase terrorist attacks since it is a good target for their attack.
I think extending usage of nuclear power plants in general is not a safe way compared to other renewable source of energy. The danger of small mistakes is much higher than the benefit can produce in short period of time. Also, nuclear energy needs lots of care and attention and can have large negative impact in areas with lots of population like in Germany with many countries around the Germany.
Post a Comment