Are you sure that's you want nuclear energy when in other country they want alternative energy ?

Question

Are you sure that's you want nuclear energy when in other country they want alternative energy ?

Answer 1

You don't have a choice.

Answer 2

Fuel used in Nuclear reactors is radioactive and remains so even after use. Direct contact with such fuel can cause severe harm and even a small exposure can lead to cancer etc.

So the fuel is harmful, how harmful well a small dose is sufficient to cause severe damage to lots of people.

Hence we say not to nuclear energy at least not till manking becomes smart enough to understand the consequences of hatred , greed etc. and learn to respect life.

Answer 3

The problem with alternative energy is that it is not really a viable replacement for anytime in the near future.

Answer 4

Nuclear energy provides power all night and all day, no matter whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.  Nuclear energy provides this power at a fraction of the cost of "alternative" energy while producing much less waste than "alternative" energy.  Do you think that fabricating and installing thousands of windmills or solar panels is waste free?  Solar panels contain some interesting chemicals that are hard to come by and generate toxic waste to refine and process.  Do you know how much concrete is needed to hold just one windmill in place?

I would rather have one square mile devoted to a nuclear power plant that runs all the time rather than hundreds of square miles of windmills or solar panels that only provide power when the wind blows just right (not too fast or too slow) or the sun is shining.  The used fuel waste from a year of operating that nuclear plant is easily contained in the volume of a semi-tractor trailer and over half of that volume can be re-used in a new or different plant to make more energy.

From a safety point of view, nuclear power plants have much better safety records for both employees and the public than any "alternative" energy source.  So I very much want nuclear energy in my country and I think other countries are fools for pursuing "alternative" energy.

Answer 5

It is understandable that most folks believe alternative energy is expensive and is decades away but it is hard to understand how so many folks still believe that nuclear is clean. Uranium mining is at least as dangerous as coal mining for the miners and the area that is mined. The wastes are extremely dangerous and the number of wastes is going to increase very significantly as we increase its use. Reprocessing the waste produces reduced  volume but still contains potent wastes, including plutonium. How will we keep that plutonium from every wicked but rich lunatic who feels differently about our survival than we do?

We need good common sense approaches to solving our energy problems. Maybe nuclear should play a role for the short term but what is wrong with getting real expert opinions on the status of renewable energy before we blow our cash on systems that will never be safer than the best safeguard available to it in that country?

We will surely need a mix of many power sources for several decades but if given choices, shouldn't we try to use the cleanest and try to use our scientific genius to make it the cheapest?

For those who still think alternative is stupid, you should check what Google is doing to play a role in "alternative energy." It's a place start, but solar is not just a tree huggers dream. With the same subsidies that have been given to all the current power sources, it might grow more rapidly than all of them together and become competitive financially.

http://www.google.com/corporate/green/en...

Answer 6

Which other countries are you talking about?  Certainly not France where 75-80% of the electricity is generated by nuclear power.

Answer 7

I doubt that anybody disagrees that nuclear power runs day and night or that it operates when the wind’s not blowing or the sun doesn’t shine. I doubt that anybody would argue that windmills last forever or that solar energy systems will not need to be recycled at some point. And each system will take tons of raw materials and concrete but would put numerous Americans back to work building infrastructure and equipment, installing and safely recycling materials and selling all parts of the “alternative” future. There will be many unforeseen complications and it will not be easy to convince those with strong ties to current systems to accept change. I have no personal involvement in nuclear, coal, oil, gas or any of the alternatives. I am merely a scientist who would like my grandchildren to live better than I did. When there is a choice between as safe as possible and possibly never safe enough, the choice is clear. At worst, we should carefully examine and evaluate each.

I have watched for decades as nuclear energy promised electricity so cheap it could not be monitored. Cheap never happened and depends on more than just the cents per Kilowatt. Just consider some of the history of nuclear development. The Manhattan project in 1939 cost about 23 billion dollars in today’s money. About 1000 square miles at the eventual Hanford nuclear site took private irrigated land, fruit orchards, a railroad and two entire farming communities to build two nuclear reactors which were built beside the Columbia River so the water could be used to cool the reactor which produced plutonium. Then there is the 60,00 acres of Tennessee farmland with displaced families given 2 weeks notice to vacate for the Oak Ridge facilities. These facilities were necessary to produce bombs and perhaps we would no longer exist if we had not developed weapons of defense. Still nuclear waste was known to be a problem then and it remains unsolved today. Decades of research and tons of dollars have passed but the best solution remains to either not produce it or recycle it into a reduced volume that still includes plutonium. Nobody actually wants it buried anywhere near their state. It is easy to tell others that waste is not a problem when the non-problem is not yours. If production of plutonium is the best solution, I’d hate to learn the other options that are under consideration. Do a google search for nuclear accidents someday.

Before dismissing wind, solar and new types of fuel as the product of fools, we should learn the recent status of each system from the mouth of experts in their field. Nobody should accept as gospel anything I say nor take the words from a representative of vested interests. It should also be noted that while it may be considered foolish for other countries to consider alternative energy sources, many, if not most other countries, will never have access to nuclear power. Since oil, gas and coal will go to those countries that can afford to buy the resources, solar and wind may be among their only options. We should not remain stuck in an unimaginative world that only enables ideas promoted by insiders who want to maintain their own interests.