9 Responses

1. Here in case of nuclear energy it will last untill d last day on earth, Many other sourses like petroleum will end. And here nuclear energy has much advantages that make its disadvantage negligble.

2. Over the course of its lifetime, it’s not cheap and where do you put all the waste that will be radioactive for centuries?

3. I believe that a well-operated and maintained nuclear energy program can mitigate the risks associated with nuclear power and provide significant benefits.

   Nuclear power produces no carbon emissions. The fuel source is readily available in a number of regions making wars and other political strife for fuel less likely.

   The biggest issue today is waste disposal and storage. This problem is exacerbated by the one-pass fuel cycle used by the US. If we utilized a multi-pass fuel cycle, waste, and the danger level of that waste, would be drastically reduced. We also need to consider standardization of nuclear plant design (a task underway with the DOE) to reduce the cost of bringing a new power plant into service.

4. This is a great question. In order to begin to understand nuclear energy, we need to dispel some myths about it. The frightening aspect which the past generation was brow beaten with. Two examples, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was a near disaster. One important thing to know is that the safety controls worked! Chernobyl was a disgusting event that should not have happened. That design was so poor that it was bound to fail. It has never been used in the U.S.

   The United States spend oodles of money on clean coal technology. If they are going to spend the money on clean coal, why not spend the money on clean nuclear. Nuclear is already clean. France has some of the cleanest air of any western country.

   There is some major concern with safety, and rogue regimes. While Pakistan is a great country and at the moment fairly open to the west, the fact that they have nuclear is not such a good thing.

   Since we are at a point where the nuclear “jeanie” has already been let out of the bottle, we might as well us the thing for clean energy.

5. The disadvantages are over-hyped. Some countries get 70%-80% of their power from nuclear.

   The way you tell a person who is truly concerned about CO2 from a person who just wants everyone to live like the Amish and is using CO2 as a pretext is whether he supports nuclear power.

   If he doesn’t, then he just wants us to have to change our lifestyles, go back to nature. If you like that, great, go for it. I’m like that to an extent. But lifestyles should be a choice.

6. The disadvantages of nuclear power turn out upon close examination to be almost non-existent (which may actually be the problem since it means that in a fair marketplace nothing else would have a chance (maybe space solar but that’s a few decades away)).

   The waste issue has already been solved and nuclear does have a very good safety record compared to pretty much everything else (including wind which has killed a lot of people for its very small output).

   Besides, it’s not like we have a choice in the matter, if we don’t switch to nuclear power pretty damn soon we may have underwater cities (or more underwater cities than we would have had otherwise). The option of a lowered standard of living will not be accepted and we can’t keep our standard of living high and solve global warming without nuclear, people would much rather keep emitting CO2 than live the lifestyle the Greens consider ideal (notice how those who are living that lifestyle want our lifestyle?) and in a democracy it is the people who have the ultimate power and there is a limit to how much crap they’ll tolerate.

7. Perhaps if Nuclear energy could hire Britney Spears marketing team we would be using more of it. Nuclear energy got a bad wrap when we had the accident in Russia and a near accident at 3 mile island. People got scared and many plants were taken off line. Since my nearby plant was shut down years ago, I figured all in the US suffered the same fate. I was surprised to recently hear we still have many plants in the US still running. My state is revisiting the idea.

8. Nuclear is “clean” in the sense that it generates energy without EMITTING chemicals into the air, and if a plant is set up correctly it can be very safe although there still is potential for problems. (All humans make mistakes)

   I find the biggest problem that people forget is the radioactive waste that is generated from this process. What do you do with it? Where will it go? Everyone has the “not in my backyard” mindset, and if you dig a big hole and put it there, it still doesn’t remove it – it is just contained.

   Soon enough our production of waste is going to use up all our living space or contaminate our soil, water and air. However in no way am I promoting carbon as it is definitely not the answer either. Clean, re-newable energy sources (and the big key is renewable) is the way to go if we can.

   P.S. I have done some work on the “leaks” from certain nuclear plants and sometimes “small” amounts of radio active waste are considered “acceptable” which is disturbing, and worst of all, because they are under set criteria, the public never knows.

9. I think if they can figure out a way to neutralize the waste it is a great option. But there are definitely more advantages than disadvantages. Go here for an in depth look at radioactive waste management and the difficulties involved with it:

   http://www.answers.com/topic/radioactive-waste-management