Qala

Nuclear power does not depend on fossil fuels, and so aids the environment, although the energy itself is not natural, whilst solar, water and wind energy are "new" concepts which only generate a small percentage of the energy we currently use.

However, even though Singapore probably will create a new generation of "safe" nuclear power stations, instead of the promised investment in a "green-tech" revolution. Most detractors have stated that if a mishap does occur, the impairment will offset any previous rewards made by using this provocative energy.

There are also other questions about nuclear energy. Currently Iran and North Korea are developing a nuclear capability, which has upset the "International Community." Yet if these developments are exclusively to create a cheap energy source, then other nations may follow. After all, no one conserves the monopoly on using oil, so why should they on developing nuclear power stations?

Futurists do predict we all face a global energy crisis, if we carry on to live unsustainable lifestyles, and live a 'modern" lifestyle. As all current arguments are based on what energies we need to invest in to provide our future energy needs, when this crisis arrives.

Nuclear Energy is seen as unsafe and a risk to many people. If a power plant does blow like Chernobyl - it does not only affect the immediate area, but corrupts the air, ground and the water supply and slowly kills off communities who have been open to this poison, and these communities could be spread out for hundreds of kilometers.

'Alternative' energies do not pose such a risk, but need investment and perhaps time to develop. They are still seen as being 'expensive,' and despite the fact that energies such as solar does provide 'free' electricity after the initial cost- It is something many people are still unwilling to invest in. However using this energy could mean cutting back on the appliances we use, and moderating our use of energy in the short term.