By Austin Stahl | as506610@ohiou.edu | @AustinStahl24
Today’s focus: nuclear energy. As the demand for energy increases and we look to turn off fossil fuels, are alternatives like wind and solar enough, or do we need nuclear power as well? Many environmental advocates are scared off by the potential catastrophes like Fukushima, while many others claim it is worth the risk and better than burning more fossil fuels.
1. "Shunning Nuclear Power Will Lead to a Warmer World"
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/shunning_new_nuclear_power_plants_will_lead_to_warmer_world/2510/
This physicist argues that burning coal and other dirty fossil fuels have had far greater negative impacts than all nuclear catastrophes combined. He believes the fears surrounding nuclear are based more in propaganda than fact and that climate change from burning fossil fuels is a much bigger threat than any nuclear disasters. Read his case here.
2. "Nuclear Power's Death Somewhat Exaggerated"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/energy-environment/nuclear-powers-death-somewhat-exaggerated.html?_r=2&ref=earth
After Fukushima a year ago, fears surrounding nuclear power were at an all-time high. Nuclear power faced another setback, but not as much as many think. Four new nuclear reactors are being built in the U.S. for the first time in 30 years — two in Georgia and two in South Carolina.
3. "Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich's Stunning Comments: 'I Believe There Is A Problem' With Our Climate"
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/10/461594/ohio-republican-gov-john-kasich-i-believe-there-is-a-problem-with-our-climate/?mobile=nc
What's this, a Republican acknowledging climate change? Even more encouraging, he's from Ohio? Hopefully Kasich will back up his words with action.
