Are nukes the anser to energy crisis???

Question

title says it all

Answer 1

no no no.

In my opinion nukes are way to dangerous.

And the process to get them built is way to long and expensive.

Solar power via mirrors is a good way to go.  But not on a large scale.  If every house had it's own power generating area, I think it's better.

Answer 2

Nuclear enegy KILLS

Has every one forgotten about 3Mile or The worst, Chernobyl

Nuclear power is so not the answer DANGEROUS

Answer 3

I have believed in the use of nuclear energy for many years now!

My biggest concern was the disposal of the waste.

That problem has long been solved by embedding the waste in glass prior to inserting it into stainless steel containers so even if a fault occurred in the steel container, there would be no contamination to the environment.

I want to see us use every viable alternative to oil wherever possible.

This is not to save the planet from 'Global Warming', but as a way to become less dependent on foreign oil sources.

Also the more nuclear power that is produced, the cheaper our energy should be(theoretically).

The problem is that people are afraid of what they don't understand.

The word 'Nuclear' strikes fear in most peoples minds.

They think of the nuclear bomb, the movie 'The China Syndrome', the Chernobyl disaster, and the minor incident at Three Mile Island.

A nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, or even a potential nuclear bomb.

The China Syndrome was a fictitious movie.

The Chernobyl disaster only happened because Russia was going through it's 'death throws' and cutting every corner to save money. Which by the way, as bad as it was, it was nowhere near as bad as was predicted, and has probably helped us to better understand the real affects of radiation exposure levels than we new before.

Three Mile Island was never a true disaster as much as there was never a threat of explosion(although they didn't realize that at the time of the event). The amount of radiation released into the environment was the equivalent to standing next to a brick wall for an hour or two. This however is no consolation to the families who lost there homes that were within the exclusion zone that was set up around the plant.

I'm sure many people will disagree with me but I tell it like I see it.

Answer 4

Not really.

Yes, AS LONG AS OUR TECHNOLOGY EXISTS, we can control nuclear waste. But nuclear waste, [including parts and equipment which become contaminated over the life of the powerplant] will continue to be a danger tens of thousands of years after our society collapses into dust. Do we really want to endanger our progeny with problems they're likely not even to understand? Glass pellets are fine unless they're found and made into jewelry!

Answer 5

three mile island did not kill anyone and Chernobyl

was the product of a bankrupt political system that did not care if they killed there own people.

spent nuclear fuel can be repossed to be used again and again and again.

France and japan both do this and have for years

even russia is planing to do this

http://esarda2.jrc.it/events/other_meeti...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fue...

with the spent fuel we have now plus the depleted uranium and the old nuclear weapons pits.

we have using reprocessing the fuel to run 300 reactors for about 500 years.

plus it would take less waste  storage then what we will need to store the spent fuel we have now.

all this is with out mining new ore.

with the uranium and thorium deposits we have have in the us we have the material using reprocessing to run about 750 reactors for 1000 years.



http://www.uic.com.au/index.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3186...