Sentences with phrase «think about nuclear energy»

It's a shame so few people see documentaries, and that so few politicians pay them any attention, because this film has the power to change the way we think about nuclear energy.

Not exact matches

For the first part of your question only (national security threat), from an author I don't fully agree with on Uranium and Russia (he thinks the sanctions on Russia are really about natural gas and he thinks the sanctions are foolish)- he proves that Russia is a large producer of Uranium while the US is seeing a decline in production and imports quite a bit of Uranium for nuclear energy production (sourced from the EIA).

Cuomo personally drove his team to think creatively about FitzPatrick and nuclear energy in late 2015, before his state of the state address in mid-January.

«This earthquake was something that was not foreseen by anybody, but it managed to change the way that people thought about nuclear power rather dramatically,» said Shcherbakova, who also serves as director of the Master of Science in Energy Management program at UT Dallas.

«With a scaled up solution, not only will we no longer have to think about the dangers of storing radioactive waste long - term, but we will have a viable solution to close the nuclear fuel cycle and contribute to solving the world's energy needs.

«Getting there, if you think about nuclear fusion, is going to take some moments of discovery, some «aha» moments,» Synakowski said in his talk, «Reimagining the Possible: Scientific Transformations Shaping the Path Towards Fusion Energy.»

If we are going to make a transition, for example, from fossil fuels to nuclear energy or to solar energy or to wind energy, if you think about that as a major source of energy during the next 50 years from now, you better start right now.

If I can force you to guess, do you think that you'd find a similar (what you consider to be paradoxical) pattern play out with the associations between political views and beliefs about evolution / scientific expert opinion on evolution... or nuclear energy... or other issues that display a similar pattern of association between political orientation and interpretations of scientific evidence / how experts interpret that evidence?

As far as is known, the risks from this type of low level contamination are small, but as we contemplate on one hand trying to clear up all the old nuclear sites, and on the other, building new plants, it may be wise to think about the long term implications of relying on nuclear energy.

One, James Hansen, says that to think world leaders are doing something significant about the problem is «baloney», and urges the use of nuclear power and every other form of energy which does not involve the release of carbon.

To understand the alternative that is being deferred by all the muddleheaded thinking about renewables, bio fuels, energy efficiency etc., nuclear power could provide almost all the world's energy in 2100, 2200,2300, 2400, 2500,....

Anyhow, it seems if what think as very unlikely [or impossible] were to occur, that people living in 2040 would see there is a problem and get serious about building and using nuclear energy so as to reduce future CO2 emission.

If the mix of energy technologies cheap, powerful and acceptable enough to bring this shift about includes one or more of solar, nuclear fusion or nuclear fission (and who, seriously, thinks it won't?)

These ads reflect people's anxiety about the safety of nuclear reactors and the disapproval they feel about having their hard - earned money spent on something they clearly think is a bad idea, especially when safer, more affordable, less risky energy choices exist such as efficiency, wind, solar, and bioenergy.

In fact, before Brook heard about fourth generation nuclear, he thought the global warming problem was intractable because his own calculations confirmed the observations of many others (including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, MIT President Susan Hockfield and US Senator Lamar Alexander) regarding the necessity of nuclear power due to the problems with renewables being able to scale to meet our energy Energy Secretary Steven Chu, MIT President Susan Hockfield and US Senator Lamar Alexander) regarding the necessity of nuclear power due to the problems with renewables being able to scale to meet our energy energy needs.

[2] A recent Eurobarometer poll also confirms that almost 90 % of the EU population is concerned about climate change; 82 % are well aware that the way their country consumes and produces energy has a negative impact on the climate and 61 % think that the share of nuclear energy should be decreased due to concerns such as nuclear waste and the danger of accidents.

The addition of heat from fossil fuel derived, nuclear and fusion energy can be thought about in a straightforward manner.