If Nuclear power is safe, then we could run all of our industry, and electric cars, for zero pollution.?

Question

With former non developed countries in Asia, China, and India rapidly coming on line, what chance is there to defeat global warming, and have enough energy to go around, without it?

Answer 1

What zero pollution, what about all the nuclear waste? Or don’t you consider something as hazardous as nuclear waste pollution? And just where do you plan on keep this stuff for the next 1,000 to 10,000 years?

Answer 2

Nuclear energy can be made very safe and much more efficient, to the point very little nuclear waste would be left to be stored. The public perception is very negative due to the media's horror stories about Chernobyl. Three Mile Island can't be compared to that at all. The only reasons Chernobyl was a fiasco was that it was built and run by Communists in the USSR. Poor design, bad workmanship, shoddy operations and inspections and even when it blew they tried to deny it had happened for weeks.

New reactors produce much more power per square foot of installation than any other power generation, they can re-use spent fuel rods, be designed with multiple fail-safes and installed in remote areas. Still, I doubt we'll see many built in the US due to media and environmentalist hysteria. It's the main way to generate electricity in France, they're building them in many other countries but so far only one new plant applications has been turned in over the last 30 years or so. We'll have to wait and see if it will be blocked by lawsuits.

The core of the Earth is radioactive, which is why it's hot, but don't tell the environmentalists or they'll never sleep well again.

If we could build new plants and switch to electric power for most of our needs, we could stop using petroleum for anything but lubricants and plastic, all within a decade or two. But it won't happen unfortunately.

I don't regard global warming as half the threat global cooling would be and I don't think our impact on warming is very much. But there is a finite amount of oil and using it the way we do is just plain stupid, not to mention the pollution and environmental damage. I think the bigger problem is we're empowering nations that don't like us at all and we've made our entire economy dependent on them selling us oil. If they stop, as they have before, we'd have an overnight Depression.

Answer 3

Agreed that developing nations have poor track records for environmental stewardship.  Nuclear has great promise, but while pollution is the environmental harm we can see, the risks around nuclear mishap represent great potential environmental harm.  Furthermore, spent nuclear rods have long half-lives and must be stored carefully -- this is a form of pollution as well.  I think that nuclear should be used more frequently, especially since it reduces our reliance on foreign oil (and keeps those energy dollars in the country), but the best way to do environmental good is good old fashioned RRR: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.

Answer 4

Nuclear Power Safe?

The safety aspect is  relative.

I think Nuclear Power is to stay and also has a bright future. It is a strong contender for being a source of power in coming years. Energy security  may not be achieved without Nuclear Power. It is a "tamed" Nuclear Bomb, an elephant that can go berserk i.e. has a very high risk  for damage hence,   its safety  is still questionable.   We still have to go a long way to bring this technology to Zero Radiation Hazard  Level  and  learn  efficient ways of handling Nuclear Waste.

No Power Generation is Safe be it  Hydro or  thermal.

The safety factor depends upon the potential of damage that can be  caused by failure of the plant and appurtenant structures and the size of its downstream  envelope effects.

Miniaturization of  Nuclear fission and fusion technologies would usher a new era,  the  hydrogen cell is a successful  embryo of  this transformation.

thnks

Answer 5

Nuclear power can be safe.  But enviromental lobiests keep new plants from being built in developed countries.  And since India used Candu reactors to make bombs selling of nuclear technolgy has slowed somewhat.

Answer 6

Nuclear power is reasonably safe only when nuclear power stations are built with the best technology available, and that costs a lot, a nuclear power station costs twice the cost of a coal powered station.

most countries, who are legally entitled to use nuclear energy, are avoiding it because of the costs involved.

Some countries are prevented from acquiring nuclear energy, because they will not use it solely for energy production.

Answer 7

We could run everything off electricity from nuclear power, but people are afraid of the word nuclear.

Answer 8

I just love all this stuff about global warming.  It is a natural trend that repeats itself.  One volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses then the entire industrial age from 1900 to present.  When Mt. Pinatubo sounded off, we had a little cooling trend.  not much, but then in a couple of years it subsided.

Nuclear power is well researched and the theories are sound.  We have been operating plenty of Nuclear power sites without incident for the last 40 years.  Many of these plants are now considered aging.  How we handle this will demonstrate the viability of Nuclear power.  Independent citizens should not handle nuclear material though.  It does require a considerable commitment.  You cannot walk away from an active reactor.  Control systems must be monitored 24 hours a day.  micro-reactors could create power, but it would be a safety nightmare.

Remember this.  Energy is the ability to do work.  Safety is the containment or control of what work that energy is going to do.  The subsequential heating of a gasoline engine is energy lost to inefficiency or inability to control the energy as it changes forms.  All forms of energy are gaged by this equasion.  The subsequential assignment of energy to do harm to us or our environment has to be controlled in every energy production plant.  In energy production, efficency equals money, so their is a high motivation to achieve more control.  College campuses across the globe are racing to find new methods and better ways every day.  the first one to do it will receive accalade across the globe.

I have found that most "environmentalists" are big on accusations but light on answers.  It would please them if we all went back into caves and worshiped trees.  The first nation to achieve this will be conquored.

Answer 9

Nuclear fission is far from safe. google "chernobyl incident". Nuclear FUSION WOULD be safe, if we could make it work, but we can't.

Global warming - we've been coming out of an ice age for 65 million years, deal with it. Even during the Industrial Revolution humankind did not contribute significantly to the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and even if we all stopped burning things right here and now, period, we wouldn't be able to stop global warming unless we deliberately induced a worldwide nuclear winter. Just move away from the coast and look forward to antarctica becoming arable land - it's all you can do.

Answer 10

Remeber chernobyl??? It (nuclear plant) killed lots of people I think. It also produces its own kind of pollution. Some countries might think you are developing a nuclear weapon (as in Iran's plight)

But the idea of using lots of energy for electric cars and other zero emissions stuffs is a good idea.

BTW there are other sources of energy, expensive at first but maintenance is also low. Like geothermal plant, water energy plants, solar power plant, windmills, biogas, etc. I'd settle for geothermal though. In the Philippines, a developing county, they use lots of geothermal energy plants, its a poor country but they can maintain such many clean power plants.

Answer 11

Global warning is approaching to global disasters soon, as the weather changes in every part of this world. It is a very difficult task to defeat the global warning because human kinds are mainly greedy, selfish, unconcerned, money wise for doing anything, and don't give a d**n to environmental protection. I personally think everyone should start from his or her community, drive less, don't buy any new car unless it is needed, try to car pool to work and back home from work, use more buses instead of driving our own cars, go by No. 11 bus for short distances, consume the least energy, try to use least plastic bags, and many common environmental concerned matters.

There is the impasse to block the use nuclear power for industry. It is the cost and technical difficulty to apply nuclear power for all industry. Electric cars sound good for least pollution,however; it is too costly to build an electricity operating car engine and dumping the car batteries also cause the contemination of our environment. According the human greed and money wise tactics, many engineers and scientists preferred the traditional technology of using gas engines.

I think Hong Kong is a city to represent the worst case of environmental protection failure. There are more than 3,000 citizens had died for the Hong Kong foul air annually, and officially declared 5,700 had died because of smoking in 2007. Hong Kong government still keeping the two fossil fuel power generating stations. The cars flow capcity in 400 cars per km. The Air pollution index (API) is ranging form 60-100 most of the days year round. Just in the past two weeks, Causewaybay and Mongkok have recorded 150+ API. It is to far from the WHO (World Health Organization) granted the acceptable API standard is 30.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?complete...

Answer 12

the biggest problem with nuclear plant is the by product. it is highly radioactive and we cant store it anywhere.

Answer 13

If you want zero pollution consider "The World's Cleanest Car" that runs on compressed air.  Very affordable and coming out later this year.

"BBC News is reporting that a French company has developed a pollution-free car which runs on compressed air. India's Tata Motors has the car under production and it may be on sale in Europe and India by the end of the year.

The air car, also known as the Mini-CAT or City Cat, can be refueled in minutes from an air compressor at specially equipped gas stations and can go 200 km on a 1.5 euro fill-up -- roughly 125 miles for $3. The top speed will be almost 70 mph and the cost of the vehicle as low as $7000.

The car features a fibreglass body and a revolutionary electrical system and is completely computer-controlled. It is powered by the expansion of compressed air, using no combustion at all, and the exhaust is entirely clean and cool enough for use in the internal air conditioning system. "

Answer 14

Let's not consider global warming because I believe that's largely a fraud perpetrated by neo-Marxists as just one more of the endless straw man attacks against industrial capitalism.  I'm not convinced, anyway, that the CO2 and methane being expelled by animals and decaying biomass isn't far greater than anything coming out of machines and buildings.  See http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cry...

for Greenland ice core temperature/CO2/methane historical data graphs.  They show we are in natural cycles.

Pollution, in general, however, can be improved by replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear ones.  They aren't 100% pollution free, but they're pretty close.  You will hear, from the nuclear phobic, that there are pollutants involved in the processing.  They are insignificant compared to fossil fuel, apparently even including radioactive isotopes.

Coal has a tiny quantity of those, and cumulative within the massive amount of coal used in the plants, it becomes substantial.  The amount of hydrocarbons, CO2, SO2, and other gasses produced by coal and other fossil fuel is well recognized.

Answer 15

France is 80% Nuclear. I believe Japan is 50-60%.

In the 70's, our energy industry forcasted the energy and oil shortages problems. They spent billions looking at and studying alternatives. They came to the conclusion that Nuclear combines with clean coal was the best alternatives.

"Environments", along with our ignorant Media and Politicians killed our primary means of reducing air pollution and becoming more energy independant. Thank you Liberals!

Now those same "Environmentalists" call us the evil devil that is polluting the world. Countries like France, Japan, Germany, now can have low production of CO2 because they went with Nuclear. You can thank you local Liberal "Environmentalists" for the fix we are in.

Now to answer your question. Anyone that has studied this energy problem in depth knows that at this point in time, Nuclear is the ONLY power souce available that can produce the massive amount of reliable 24/7 energy we need at any where near a reasonable cost. Solar, Wind, Geo, Etc. can help a little in some locations, and should be used where possible, but they are expensive and unreliable at times.