14 Responses

1. Nuclear energy is the most efficient form of energy, in fact nuclear fission takes place in our sun! At this point it’s not feasable in cars, but nuclear power as a source of energy is a very smart alternative to gegnerating power.

2. my opinion is nuclear is old technology and will not be the future of the world or america. some form of hydrogen powered plants or some advanced cleaner technologies will play a major role in development going forward. nuclear energy does damage ecosystems and produce waste. especially old nuclear reactors that are located near rivers and have cooling towers, they pump in millions of gallons of water to cool down reactors taking natural fish and wildlife from local waters and frying them in the reactor chamber. it has had devastating effects on many of the wildlife near powerplants of nuclear power. i do believe there are many different disadvantages to this technology and that it is not a clean energy savior.

3. Nuclear power is the biggest part of the answer to our future energy needs. Its clean and safe. We must build many more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the green lobby stands in the way of lessening our reliance on oil and other fossils. Without the political ability, or will, to approve new plants, we won’t make any significant progress anytime soon.

4. Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels. The only issue is with fission, there are radioactive byproducts. With fusion, there are no harmful wastes, and an small city can be fueled on a minimal amount of water (hydrogen). But they are years away (as far as we know) from developing practical fusion reactors.

5. We would have to commit ourselves to maintain the waste for thousands of years to avoid deadly contamination.

   Any accident with nuclear waste could lead to thousands of deaths, and if we increased our usage of it, we would increase that risk.

   If you think back to thousands of years ago in human history you can see that there has been no continuity of any particular human activity.

   For instance, from the time of the Egyptian Kings three thousand years ago: if humans had had to take care of any particularly dangerous material from that time to this time —
   they would not have been able to do it.

   There have been too many disconnects to accomplish such a task, and promising ourselves that we can look after nuclear waste for the next twenty thousand years is reckless and foolishly self-centered.

   It would be better if scientists concentrated their efforts on finding sustainable energy sources, such as finding ways to use the sun’s energy, and thermal energy from the earth, with which we could go forward into a future which our descendants could thank us for, and not pledge our descendants lives to a nuclear slavery.

   The sun’s energy and thermal energy from the earth would be sufficient to keep us going for the remainder of our human days. We just have to find out how to make use of these energies.

6. i believe so

7. I think it’s great in the short term, we have it here in Ontario and it provides half our power. The problem is the toxic waste, as it takes hundreds of thousands of years to become non-toxic.

   As well it’s a target for terrorism, you can’t argue that point.

   It’s great to replace coal now, while we put up more wind and solar and tidal, but nuclear is not forever, it’s bad in the long term, it’s hazardous.

   Wind, wave, solar are the way of the future, and non hazardous.

8. no

9. This isn’t just a matter of controversy in the states – there was supposed to be one in Germany – it never opened….it is now an amusement park –

10. Nuclear energy is the “least worst” choice we have.
    it’s really the only other option, available in the needed quantity.

    as for “0 deaths” keep in mind that other countries have had deaths, and also use it in greater quantity.
    you should expect that as our use increases, so do chances for problems.

    <
    and we’ve been working on that for 20 years, with no acceptable option in site.

    SO, do i like it? no.
    do i like anything else better? no.
    that’s where we’re going. unfortunately.
    kind’a like heading down a road that only has 1 fork where your car will fit.
    youi take it, or turn around, and restrict energy use. a lot. a real lot.

11. The waste issue cannot be understated, but overall, yes, it should be utilized at this point.

12. Whether nuclear energy is a reasonable alternative power source is a matter of disagreement.

    Nuclear energy doesn’t put pollutants into the air unless there is a melt down.

    My problem with nuclear energy is there is no safe way to dispose of radioactive material.

    There is only one type of nuclear reactor I would support being built at this time.
    It is a new type that uses radioactive material to produce electricity and manages to cut the half life by 50%.
    This is a start of fixing one problem.

13. Uranium is a good alternative to coal. We can reprocess spend fuel.
    The best approach may be hydrogen reactors when they are developed.

14. Nuclear energy will definitely account for a large percentage of our future energy generation. Solar, wind, biomass, geothermal are also part of the answer, but have power density problems (take up too much room for decent size generation ‘plant’.

    THE ANSWER TO THE WASTE PROBLEM IS SIMPLE.

    We reprocess fuel like France is already doing, which gives us a fair amount (more than 95%) of the ‘waste’ back to use as fuel again. Much of the remaining can then be burned as fuel in different types of nuclear plants. Finally, the really bad stuff, which actually lasts only a couple hundred years can be eliminated by the process of transmutation (proven technology).

    http://www.nea.fr/html/trw/