Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
We are being scared into supporting nuclear power on a campaign of fear supported by current issues such as global warming and drought. i'm not saying that these issues are not bonafide, simply that they are being exploited by big business to support nuclear power. similar to the war on terror starting with a fear campaign by bush to garner support from the americans and the rest of the world. so too, nuclear power is gaining acceptance in much the same fashion.
soon we will realise that it is a hoax and that there are other, better ways forward on this issue.