Several days ago, our boss talked with us about why the booming price of petroleum makes the market index turn green (or red in Taiwan). He said the petroleum should be replaced by nuclear energy someday, since nuclear energy is much cleaner than the energy from oil-burning. And higher price of oil would lead those developed countries devote themselves to develop green energy. Therefore, the market just reflects the trend and that's why the index turns green.
Seems reasonable, hum? But why the nuclear energy? He said it would produce enough power to supply all human need in a small volume or mass. And better, it produces no carbon-dioxide that causes greenhouse effect. Seems great, doesn't it? But my dear boss, can you tell me how to deal with the nuclear/radioacitve wastes? You said the nuclear waste can be "burn into ash" but how? You answered grossly. We all know the nuclear fission is a physical chain-reaction, and this would lead to materials with radiation. Radioactive wastes are waste types containing radioactive chemical elements that do not have a practical purpose. As the article I typed from the Economist mentioned, none knows how to deal with the nuclear waste.
If we human embrace the nuclear energy without the ability to deal with its waste, what's the future we or our heirs will take? Hope not the title of that article--life after death--describe.
dyc
-----------------
An article practiced in English may have lots of faults. But I just try not to forget too much vocabulary as possible since there isn't too much chance to use English.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。