The energy demands of the world are continuously increasing. Experts are worried about the future of power generation because there are not enough supplies of coal, water and gas to fulfill the needs of mankind in the long term future. Alternative sources of energy such as nuclear energy are being developed. Nuclear energy has several advantages over other sources of energy because it is not limited by space or location.
As the name itself suggests, a nuclear power plant is a facility where nuclear energy is harnessed to generated electricity. For those of us who haven’t heard about this term, it may seem like a new concept since we usually hear of atomic and hydrogen bombs which use nuclear energy for large scale destruction. But the same power is used for constructive purposes in nuclear power plants. This gives an edge to nuclear power plants over conventional sources like coal or gas because it means freedom from geographical factors and parameters. Furthermore since the amount of fuel required is much less as compared to conventional sources of power generation, there is no need to have extensive storage facilities and transportation networks for the same amount of power generated.
Speaking on BBC television a year ago the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, stated that, "There is absolutely no doubt that if you want to arrest the Greenhouse Effect you should concentrate on a massive increase in nuclear generating capacity. Nuclear power stations give out no sulphur and carbon dioxide, so they are the cleanest form of power generation". Despite subsequent qualifications to these views, it is obvious that Mr. Ridley was acting as the stalking horse for a Prime Minister and a Government that clearly favour nuclear power. Those responsible for the public relations campaigns of the nuclear and related industries have taken a more subtle, yet no less emotive approach.
Faced with a widening gulf between image and reality over nuclear economics, safety, radiation hazards, nuclear weapons proliferation, decommissioning and waste disposal; the greenhouse effect and global warming has provided a welcome lifeline for beleaguered public relations staff. In expensive double-spread advertisements, British Nuclear Fuels pic proclaims, "The Greenhouse Effect. We have the power to prevent it" and nuclear power is portrayed as "a source of clean energy for the future". Mindful of rules governing factual content in advertising and wary of an audience that has become better informed through bitter experience: National Power, one of the intended successors to the Central Electricity Generating Board, explains in its recent publicity that, "Although not implicated in either the greenhouse effect or acid rain, nuclear power generation does, of course, present its own set of environmental concerns".
Despite such efforts, two fundamental questions which are central to the whole debate about nuclear power and global warming remained unanswered. These were, "Does nuclear power contribute to carbon dioxide emissions?" and "Can nuclear power provide a realistic long-term solution to global warming.Mr Obama said they were needed to meet future energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. There has been no new nuclear power plants started in the US since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. President Obama called the programmed "only the beginning" of efforts to develop "safe, clean," energy efficient technologies. He called for comprehensive energy legislation which assigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving utility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner nuclear fuel.
But I think that after announcing the two new nuclear plants in America, will create the confusion about some countries that want to nuclear power enhancement in their countries will be much interested to marketing the nuclear material and equipments.President Barack Obama insists that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is about "making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies" or "project violence against" American citizens. The reasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the president puts it, Afghanistan would "again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." This argument is constantly repeated but rarely examined; given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region.
It is time such statements be given the scrutiny they deserve. Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks -- which the Taliban had nothing to do with -- led to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the "AfPak" region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.
Ejaz Alam is an associated author with India next and provides more information about <a href= http://indianext.com/world>World News.
