ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE. NUCLEAR, PROS AND CONS

It’s needless to say that nuclear is a hot subject. It arouses public imagination, suspicion, and fear. It has always animated scientists’ minds and souls and after they discovered how to manipulate the atom, the public conscience has become aware of its dangers and its merits. Present paper aims to present why it is important to regard with optimism and trust the science of atoms, not without loosing our critical view concerning the risks inherently connected to it. Nuclear arms are a reality, but climate change is another. Mankind is facing both. It cannot ignore one of them without assuming greater risks in the future. In this context, nuclear can be regarded with hope and audacity. Its expansion, both in countries where it already is employed, and into newcomers (where it could be implemented), can bring benefits such as: reducing energy dependence on foreign interests placed under the umbrella of oil and gas producers, or transporters; rising energy security in a world where access to cheap and reliable energy would become more problematic; greater success in fighting climate changes and global warming through energy generated in a more environmentally friendly manner. Furthermore, over the energy aspect of peaceful nuclear energy, there is another economic and technological benefit: nuclear researches could be involved simultaneously in electricity generation, heat production, agricultural and industrial rising’s potential, water desalinization and providing in arid areas, and application in medical researches and treatment. But nuclear has its weak points: it is connected to military researches and programs, while offering the needed technical ground for UN Security Council permanent members to have and maintain prestige in international politics; it looms over mankind, as a menace which hunts our conscience after Hiroshima and Nagasaki… Its minuses have to do with international context, too: if we connect the highest level in technology with strongest religious sentiment than we can face a terrifying drama. A nuclear nuke in the hands of a terrorist organization is the worst nightmare mankind could face. Countries with nuclear arms (Russian Federation and Pakistan) were courted by dangerous organizations, which searched to gain access to fissile material. But there is a hope, and the paper presents it in an indirect manner: if public conscience activates in direction of nuclear disarmament, nuclear could become the hope for a better future. Nuclear disarmament would mean a safer world, while peaceful nuclear expansion will mean cleaner energy and greater access to electricity in more areas, all of them creating a better world and a civilization proud of its name.