|
The nuclear power debate is a controversy〔In February 2010 the nuclear power debate played out on the pages of the ''New York Times'', see (A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power ) and (Revisiting Nuclear Power: A Debate ) and (A Comeback for Nuclear Power? )〕〔In July 2010 the nuclear power debate again played out on the pages of the ''New York Times'', see (We’re Not Ready ) (Nuclear Energy: The Safety Issues )〕 about the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.〔Jim Falk (1982). ''Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power'', Oxford University Press, pages 323-340.〕 Observers attribute the nuclear controversy to the impossibility of generating a shared perception between social actors over the use of this technology〔 as well as systemic mismatches between expectations and experience.〔 Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels.〔(U.S. Energy Legislation May Be `Renaissance' for Nuclear Power ).〕 Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 title= The Nuclear Energy Option )〕 Opponents say that nuclear power poses numerous threats to people and the environment and point to studies in the literature that question if it will ever be a sustainable energy source.〔J. M. Pearce, “(Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source ), ''Sustainability'' 4(6), pp.1173-1187 (2012).〕 These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Nuclear Energy is not a New Clear Resource )〕〔Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council (January 2007). ''(Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook )'', p. 7.〕 They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents.〔Stephanie Cooke (2009). ''In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age'', Black Inc., p. 280.〕 Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology.〔Jim Green . (Nuclear Weapons and 'Fourth Generation' Reactors ) ''Chain Reaction'', August 2009, pp. 18-21.〕 They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.〔Mark Diesendorf (2007). ''Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy'', University of New South Wales Press, p. 252.〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/NukesSocialAlternativesMD.pdf )〕 ==Two opposing camps== Two opposing camps have evolved in society with respect to nuclear power, one supporting and promoting nuclear power and another opposing it. At the heart of this divide sit different views of risk and individual beliefs public involvement in making decisions about large-scale high technology. Questions which emerge include: is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment? Could another Chernobyl disaster or Fukushima disaster happen? Can we dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner? Can nuclear power help to reduce climate change and air pollution in a timely way? In the 2010 book ''Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power''〔Brook, B.W. & Lowe, I. (2010). ''Why vs Why: Nuclear Power.'' Pantera Press, ISBN 978-0-9807418-5-8〕 Barry Brook and Ian Lowe discuss and articulate the debate about nuclear power. Brook argues that there are seven reasons why people should say "yes" to nuclear power:〔 *Because renewable energy and energy efficiency won’t solve the energy and climate crises *Because nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and packs a huge energy punch *Because new technology solves the "nuclear waste" problem *Because nuclear power is the safest energy option *Because advanced nuclear power will strengthen global security *Because nuclear power's true costs are lower than either fossil fuels or renewables *Because nuclear power can lead the "clean energy" revolution Lowe argues that there are seven reasons why people should say "no" to nuclear power:〔 *Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change *Because it is too expensive *Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated *Because the problem of waste remains unresolved *Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war *Because there are major safety concerns *Because there are better alternatives ''The Economist'' says that nuclear power "looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky", and that "it is replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works". When asking what the world would be like without it ''The Economist'' notes that "(w)ithout nuclear power and with other fuels filling in its share pro rata, emissions from generation would have been about 11 billion tonnes. The difference is roughly equal to the total annual emissions of Germany and Japan combined." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「nuclear power debate」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|