The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 (byproduct of nuclear energy) will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years. (24,000 being it’s half life: wagingpeace.org)
And this is considered clean energy? What person in their right mind would seriously suggest that this is clean energy?
Solar, wind, geothermal, tide, hydro, why are you people oblivious to this fact? Communities all across the country can have differing ways of harnessing energy. In West Virginia, keep your coal firing.
It might have no emissions, but it has hundreds of thousands of years of radioactive properties. You’re willing to trade cheap fuel for thousands of generations of this?? And have you seen the folks that are exposed to this?? Not to mention the mining catastrophes and the health of the miners..
Also, one more point: If you have solar panels and a wind turbine on your house, YOU are providing energy to the grid. You pay 0 $. So which is cheaper you have to ask yourself??
I hate libs, so shut up.
What about the enormous amount of garbage we have? That emits plenty of gas and energy we can harvest as well. There are so many different ways each community can do this, yet we rely on the multinational corporations that dictate your beliefs.
10 Responses
I would speculate that being it’s “life cycle” is so tremendous the only hazard is proper storage, not the energy that it creates.
Obama killed R&D on handling nuclear waste storage. This big spender wants us to freeze in the winter and cook in the summer.
Just what do you propose we use when oil, coal, nuclear are off the table?
Solar & wind aint going to make up for all of that.
It is practical and has no emissions so get over it. $.03 per kilowatt hour compared to $.17 per kilowatt hour with wind and solar is $.21. Also these alternatives don’t work at night when the wind isn’t blowing
Because nuclear power does not contribute to global warming.
And was the recommended alternative suggested by the UN Climate Panel.
Plus, nuclear energy is the ONLY viable alternative to replace Fossil Fuel power plants.
Solar, hydro, wind power production at best, can only meet around 20% of our energy needs.
So something has to provide the other 80% of our energy.
And since fossil fuel power plants are the single largest contributor of green house gas’s.
They need to be replaced as soon as possible.
And the only alternative to replace them, is nuclear energy.
“Clean” means no fossil fuel emissions from burning. Therefore, nuclear is as clean as they come.
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about …listen to this and educate yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfdwa4YED-k and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcOmuyah19s even more info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYCxtEgo-b4
What are you libs going to replace energy with once coal, gas, oil and nuclear are taxed out of existance? Do you really think wind farms and solar are going to do it?
That is assuming you do not recycle it. If you recycle the nuclear “waste” you eventually deplete it down to a lesser radioactive material.
And nuclear power has killed far fewer people than oil, coal or gas. It does not mess up the air or water. Try living down wind of a fossil fuel power plant sometime and tell me how “clean” that is.
Because nuclear power does not release waste to the environment like fossil fueled plants.
The Plutonium 239 is a valuable, fissionable fuel which can be used to produce electricity in future reactors.
Usually 5 time constants is considered statistically near zero, if the Plutonium were not used to produce power.
Use wind and solar to reduce individual energy use and suppliment where possible, but base load power is still necessary and nuclear is the best way to produce base load electrical power. A stable, reliable energy supply is necessary for economic and technicological success on a global scale.
The energy produced is clean energy, mo effluent no CO2. The waste material is another matter and can be dealt with. We can solve all the problems of the world surely we can learn how to store spent rods from nuclear energy plants. Chernoble is the one they always point to as their example of failure. The probability of a nuclear disaster is very low but it is possible, anything is.