On the other hand, some business men and economists say that the present conditions should be kept intact, as the other forms of energy, e.g. oil, natural gas and coal, are only temporary, in dealing with surplus, and give off more pollution with less economic growth. Concurrently, countries wanted a more reliable, smokeless form of energy not controlled by OPEC, and very little uranium was required to produce such a high amount of resultant energy. Lastly, they said that renewable energy is (a) unreliable in that the wind, for example, could not be depended upon to blow, nor the sun to shine, and (b) were intermittent in that a 1,000 mega- watt solar farm may occupy about 5,000 acres of land, compared with less than 150 acres of land for a similar capacity nuclear power generation station. Because the energy technology that society employs directly influences the quantity and quality of life, the energy option that is chosen should have the greatest cost- benefit effectiveness as well as maximizing flexibility and purchases. However, those who believe in continuous energy consumption growth, seem to forget that there is only a limited supply of energy in every energy system, and to "overdo" any resource may provide for an unacceptable impact upon global and regional ecology. Thus, if the business world pushes the environment as far as it can go, Ceribus Paribus, please refer to figure 1. Thus, to use petroleum as a substitute for uranium, which is needed to power the nuclear system, would not be economically or environmentally sensible. I say this because, first of all, there is a major supply of uranium considering it was one of the last energy sources to be found as well as only a small amount of it is required to produce a lot of energy. Secondly, petroleum gives off carbon monoxide which is one of the reasons for ozone depletion; whereas, the uranium does not give off pollution except that it produces plutonium which needs to be buried for more than fifty years to get rid of its radiation.
