Are there really any serious reasons that we should keep the US from using nuclear energy as a source of power

Question

Yes, there are accidents, there's been two major ones, one in the US, and one in Ukraine. But everything we do has a risk factor, and the fact is countries such as France have been using nuclear energy successfully for years. With the impending fact that soon we will run out of many predominate natural resources, or that soon we will have to get so relent on them from other countries that they will drive electricity costs through the roof, can people today really justify that nuclear energy as a power source is a bad idea?

Answer 1

With the right type reactors

the US has the fuel already mined to run for 500 years.

We have proven safe reactors that have never had a accident

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

With the right type reactors we will have very little nuclear waste.

A lot has been learned about building nuclear power plants since the last commercial nuclear power plant was built in the US.

This means that new plants will last longer and be easier to maintain.

also some reactor type plants using 4 to 5 small navy type reactors after the reactor reaches the end of it life it can be defueled and removed to a site for mothballing and a new reactor installed.

This will greatly lengthen the life of a power plant and cut cost of the plant as the non-radioactive side of the plant can be used with a new reactor,

The cold side of the plant is about 3/4 of the cost of the plant,

Since the mothballed reactor vessel is not a threat to water supplies it can be moved to some where like the nuclear test site in Nevada coated with plastic and left to set till it cools to a non radioactive level.

And since it contains no nuclear fuel it would cool in less then 50 years.

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

with the right type reactors and reprocessing the fuel we have stored in cooling tanks right now.

plus the pits from nuclear weapons and the depleted uranium we have stored in the US

and the large deposits of unmined uranium and thorium.

we have the fuel to run about 500 nuclear power plants for 1000 years.

one thing that the anti nuclear treehuggers don't under stand is that we will HAVE to build nuclear powered cargo ships someday as oil runs out.

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

there is no way to run a fleet of cargo ships on solar or wind power.

and with the oil running out and the price of oil going up the only option is nuclear.

Answer 2

France safely generates 70 - 80% of their power from nuclear and they even recycle the fuel rods in a way that drastically reducing any leftover waste.  60 minutes did a story last year on this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/0...

The primary objection to nuclear is based on fear.  But nothing that happened in Chernobyl should be a factor in the US.  During the Cold War, the "quality" of many of their projects were far below those done in the west.

Answer 3

I favor nuclear power.

I disagree that there have been "two major (accidents), one in the US, and one in Ukraine". It is absurd to lump Three Mile Island in with Chernobyl. Many people were killed immediately and many others died from radiation in a short time and a whole city was contaminated so badly that it had to be abandoned as a result of that accident. Nobody was killed at Three Mile Island and not one single person had to abandon their home. If Chernobyl is major then Three Mile Island is minor. Chernobyl was millions of times worse than any other nuclear event in the world, including the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities in World War Two. Those two Japanese cities are populated today with no measurable radiation in them.

Answer 4

Well, to begin with, many years ago when they first proposed the idea of nuclear energy, they (the utility companies and the federal government) made the claim that "the energy produced would be so cheap, we would not even need to have meters", and we now all know how that turned out.

Next, the cost of building a nuclear plant is out of sight, and the life expectancy is actually much shorter than conventional electric plants, plus the cost of "mothballing" or closing one is higher  than the cost of building it in the first place.

  Now, lets add the fact, they still do not know how to safely dispose of the spent fuel rods, so one can see why the reluctance to the idea of nuclear energy.

  I might add, the safest, cleanest and earth friendly way is still the water powered generation, and cheapest to operate.

emiller 1 :

"Opal - Damming rivers prevents fish from spawning, blocks sediment and washes away marshes. Hardly a great choice if you are concerned with the environment."

  I agree partly, but if you look at the results of the dam built on the Colorado river, the Hoover dam, it not only has produced clean electricity for decades, but also helped the enviroment, and produced a large recreational area in back or upstream from the dam, plus the only time a dam stops fish from reproducing or migration are those built near the ocean, and even then they provide "fish ladders" for them to get upstream to spawn.

Answer 5

If we do seriously consider it, it's just a matter of being smart where we place these plants.  Along Tornadoe ally, not a good idea, near the San Adreas fault line, even stupider.  America is typically afraid to take risks due to liability issues.

Answer 6

if you think it is safe why don't you go live next door to a plant & sit outside in your lawn chair during the next melt down. i suppose you would rather eat tainted meat & feed it to your children than to throw it away simply because "everything we do has a risk".

have-a-nice-day!

Answer 7

We have to keep using nuclear power for the following reasons:

Stop funding the terrorists

No more Oil Wars.

Energy Independence



Other things we should be doing:

Drill in Anwar.  

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

Why you should believe that we can do these things:

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

What we will gain by doing these things is:

Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.

Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.

Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.

Answer 8

Nuclear power is the cleanest and safest way to mass produce power - by far.  Until we can find a truly green way of producing energy, nuclear power is clearly our best option.

Answer 9

I can- I think its all a bad idea because we should be preserving our natural resources ie more recyling and caring about what we do. The waste from nuclear energy is distructive and in my opinion if every one looked after the world is totally avoidable. Regards Rebecca

Answer 10

we are just scared of some nuclear accident, like 3 mile island of chernobyl happening again, but it is much more efficient than any other other source

Answer 11

Money - It costs a lot to build a nuclear power plant although its cheaper in the long term but people don't generally think of the long term.

Fear - 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.  Even though they are not likely to happen today people assume the worst and clearly remember what happened when something goes wrong.

Its a shame because its a great and clean way to make large amounts of cheap power.

Opal - Damming rivers prevents fish from spawning, blocks sediment and washes away marshes.  Hardly a great choice if you are concerned with the environment.