7 Responses

1. While I support nuclear energy, I think you have overlooked some of the drawbacks. For one thing, yes there is radiation on Earth, but “radiation” is such a general term that it is meaningless. Radio waves, light, UV, etc are all the same basic thing, they’re just at different wavelengths. In terms of its physical effects, you could say that the shorter the wavelength, the more harmful it is, and nuclear radiation emits the shortest of them all (gamma rays.)

   A few other concerns are:

   Security, ie there is no way to know for sure if a nuclear facility is only making power or is also manufacturing nuclear weapons.

   Supply: uranium is a non-renewable energy, and there is only a finite amount on Earth.

   Safety: While I do believe this one is grossly exaggerated (coal has killed far more people than nuclear energy has), it has become perhaps the biggest hurdle when people try to build new nuclear plants. Most citizens do not want a nuclear plant in their city, despite what is in fact a very impressive safety record over the years.

2. i can only tell you why i am against it.

   1) the waste. i say that mainly due to the fact that companies cannot be trusted. their main priority is to make money. unless their board is ok with a responsible waste management program, i don’t trust any company with nuclear waste. i feel it’ll be dumped in some ocean or leaked into some stream. corporate responsibility and government corruption are the two main players in this first answer.

   2) radiation is a dangerous thing. radiation rearranges things on a cellular level which can be devastating to say the least for those effected.

   mainly what i see/think about when some politician brings up nuclear energy is the accident in russia/ukraine a dozen years ago (Chernobyll). I personally worked with people trying to get the radiation out of the soil and food/fruit/vegeetables of residents within 100 miles for years.

   bottom line is, if something goes wrong, it goes really wrong for years. and besides, i feel it is unnatural. i think there are many many many ways of going around using nuclear energy, especially if you have no reason to create weapons. it’ll just take a more comprehensive approach. look into Brown’s gas, or electrolysis to splits water molecules. they said you couldn’t find that type of energy anywhere except the sun. now people do it in the garage or backyard and free energy on tap that they can create, or just not to create, based on their personal lifestyle/preference.

3. There are several reasons I believe people are afraid of nuclear power:
   1. Nuclear explosions/bombs are linked in peoples minds to nuclear power plants, even though it is physically impossible for a nuclear reactor to have a nuclear detonation. If people thought of napalm every time they filled their car with gasoline we would probably have no combustion engine automobiles.
   2. People do not understand how nuclear power plants operate and people fear the unknown. If we did a better job explaining the basics of nuclear power, in simple language, fewer people would be afraid.
   3. People believe nuclear power is not “natural” and as such dangerous. They are unaware of the naturally occurring reactor that was discovered to have been in operation underground in South Africa thousands of years ago.
   4. Activists have been fear mongering to dupe people out of their hard earned money for decades. They have made their living on perpetuating the fear.
   5. People believe that nuclear power plants are not 100% safe, and they are right, nothing is 100% safe. Di-hydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is objectively one of the deadliest substances known to man, but to ban it is sheer idiocy. Nuclear power is however one of the safest technologies ever used to produce electricity, which has saved countless lives preventing lung disease, hypothermia, and provided a standard of living better than any in history. There has to be a risk/benefit analysis with nuclear power, like DHMO, the benefit far outweighs the risk.

4. Three words: Three. Mile. Island.

   And thanks to deregulation (more to come before Bush leaves office) there are many loopholes in the industry. There are many plants operating with less than optimal safety/environmental controls.

5. The main reason I’m against nuclear energy is that it’s simply too expensive.

   “current “reasonable estimate for levelized cost range … is 12 to 17 cents per kilowatt hour lifetime”
   http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/13/nuclear-power-part-2-the-price-is-not-right/

   That’s about double the cost of wind energy, and several other renewable alternatives (i.e. solar thermal and geothermal) are already cost-competetive at that price and can be built more easily. It costs about $8 billion to build a single nuclear power plant, which means it’s nearly impossible to privately finance. Then you basically need a socialistic energy program like they have in France to build a significant number of nuclear plants, and good luck making that happen in the USA.

   If it were still cheap, I’d be okay with nuclear. The waste is a problem, but one that we could solve. But the fact of the matter is that several renewable energy sources are as cheap or cheaper, easier to build, and have an unlimited energy supply.

6. I am against nuclear energy because, as many others here have pointed out, the waste lasts for millennia. And how do we prevent that waste from becoming weaponized? Why should our children and theirs (ad nauseum) be responsible for our radioactive waste? The US government may have some grand plan for storing the waste, but what happens when the facilities need repair? Who cleans up the mess that ensues? Yeah, I remember Three Mile Island also. And Chernobyl.
   I believe that as long as we look to nuclear energy, oil, and coal to fulfill our energy needs, we won’t search as hard for an alternative. These are tried energy sources. We know they work, but at what cost?

7. I think many people are so against nuclear power because what they don’t COMPLETELY understand, scares them. Everyone brings up 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, but never mentions the number of nuclear power plants operating that have never had a problem. Those 2 catastrophic failures were also largely based on operators, whom either didn’t understand or didn’t properly interpret their indications. Not to mention the fact that the plant design and safety systems required by the NRC pretty much eliminate the possibility of either event happening again.