Is Nuclear Fuel our only alternative for the future?

Question

Is Nuclear Fuel our only alternative for the future?

Answer 1

Nope. We have solar as an option. Each generation of panels becomes more efficient than the last and the cost goes down. We have wind and water.  We will have hydrogen. Our options are only limited by our imagination and our  willingness to pay for it.

Answer 2

i think solar and nuclear are the only ones combined solar farms could be hidden behind trees to give good energy and nuclear is safer now.wind farms  a blot on the landscape

Answer 3

No Nuclear fuel is not the only sustainable enregy alternative for the future, but it is one of several green alternatives such as, Wind, Wave, Solar.  We cannot relay on Fossil fuels as these are a scarce commodity and produce high emissions of carbon's into the atmosphere producing an increase in global warming.  Our planet has warmed and cooled many times since it was formed and will do so over a cycle of 10,000 or 15,000 years, but this is a gradual climatic change unlike the global change occuring at this present time due to our mis-use of fossil fuels.

Answer 4

Nuclear is a very viable option that is "clean energy".  Look at France and other European Nations.  We also can find better means to reuse the spent fuel to reprocess......in that way we would never need "dumping grounds" for the used Nuclear rods.

Answer 5

It is one alternative but surely not the only one. What we need in fact is an "energy mix" where all sources could contribute for a share. Nuke (just do it...) is good for the production of basis cheap electricity but you can also use natural gas, water dams, photovoltaics pannels, wind generators and biomass derivates. The greatest mistake would be to try to substitute a unique source to petroleum.

Anyway, we must be aware that fossile fuels (included coal, especially for United States and China) will stay the dominant energy sources, at least until 2050 and maybe beyond. Unless major technological breathrough (maybe in controlled thermonuclear fusion or supraconductors...).

Just one last thing : hydrogen is not an energy source but an energetical vector. Of course, applications as fuel cells can offer promising perspectives, for transport or domestic appliances. For the moment, it's still too expensive.

Answer 6

no. we have solar power, wind power and coming soon, sea current power (i think it is wave power), biomass and geothermal. you can see it from the link provided below.

Answer 7

Right now, yes it is.

For wind and ground based solar to be useful as replacements for fossil fuels (which is what we need) we need a decent way of storing energy for when the sun don't shine and the wind isn't blowing (despite what some of the more rabid 'renewable' proponents may tell you there are such things as still nights) and we don't have large scale energy storage technology perfected (the only thing there is right now is pumped hydro which is inefficient and requires a good hydro source).

Hydroelectricity and geothermal power have the reliability to replace fossil fuels but don't work everywhere and so aren't the complete solution (though where they are cheaper than nuclear they should be used and the ones that already exist should stay).

Clean coal looks more like a bunch of PR nonsense than an actual future power source.  Even the most optimistic assessments of it don't look very good from an economic point of view and even if you are dealing with the CO2 from coal it still has all the environmental, health and safety problems of coal mining.

We can't do fusion yet although in a few decades we probably will be able to build fusion power plants but we can't wait a few decades.  Space based solar could solve the reliability problem with solar by putting the panels in a place that is always sunny and doesn't get clouds (i.e. Geostationary orbit) but has the problem of the space infrastructure needed not existing, I'd give this one a few decades before it becomes an option.

So by process of elimination we are left with only nuclear fission.

Answer 8

Nuclear should only be a last desperate resort as it is the only fuel that is  "the gift that keeps on giving" in otherwords, nobody seems to know what or where to put all the waste product that will be created that has a really nasty habbit of killing everything for thousands of years after it has made electricity.

There are much better ways to make electricity these days.

Answer 9

the sea is our biggest natural resourse which we don't really use much for energy, the technology is already been used but on a small scale.  

Answer 10

it's not our only option but it is the only one fully developed so far. It will be a while before we can rely on renewable or carbon neutral sources but environmental campaigners are correct in saying that far too little funding has been made available to develope them, especially when compared to money used to research nuclear and carbon based sources.

The problem of what to do with the nuclear waste and containment of accidental leaks has not been properly resolved.

Answer 11

Solar energy has massive potential!

Its is clean and becoming much cheaper, it even works in northern countries with Germany being the world leader in Solar Power.

Its success is purely down to government support

If your interested in learning more check out www.solarinvestment.co.uk

its a forum with links to loads of articals on solar power

Cheers Elliot

Answer 12

the only logical one with the current tech

Answer 13

No for several reasons. It is NOT clean - accessing the raw fuel creates huge environmental degredation; building the nuclear complex is hugely damaging; and something has to be done with the toxic by product.

It is NOT cheap - Nuclear is heavily subsidised; it is also getting more and more costly to source the raw fuel; and the complex has to be de-commissioned at huge expense at the end of its limited life

It is NOT sustainable -  Sources of raw fuel are dwindling and there is no long term guarantee that the countries from which it is obtained will continue to allow us to mine there.

Add to that the fact that even if we start NOW it will take many years before the stations are producing.

Others are right, not enough effort has been put into renewables; we should be looking at as wide a variety of energy  sources as possible; we should stop being so profligate with energy; and we should move away from the National Grid mentality and promote more local production.

Answer 14

We use energy as if it was free. The only true option is to develop more respect for energy and not to waste it.

On nuclear power, however, I find it a clean source of energy and has minimum impact on the environment. With careful management of the waste products there is no reason to not use it.  

Answer 15

no coal & windpower

Answer 16

Don't be silly. It doesn't matter what alternatives there are, it depends on what those with the power and the money want used.

Answer 17

Let's look at some facts.

Nuclear is non-polluting... NO

It is just low carbon! New nuclear power stations willl leave us with an inheritance of waste which will last thousands of years.

Nuclear is the only working technology .... NO.

There are lots of alternatives, such as Thin Film Photovoltaic Cells, Solar Heat, Combined Heat and Power and Clean Coal. Also, Wind and Tide could produce more than double our energy needs. Geo-thermal heat exchangers are being used in social housing in the UK.

Nuclear is cheap and predictable.... NO

Nuclear is heavily subsidised. The tax payer will have to pay between £80 and £200 billion to clear up after the first generation of MAGNOX reactors and clear up the legacy of waste. That excludes the second generation AGR recators. The government acts as insurer for the nuclear industry as without it, it would never be able tro afford the premuims. Back in 1990, Michael Heseltine donated £6 billion over 6 years to prop up the industry when nuclear power was running at a loss and could not be privatised. He said this was to cover decommissioning  costs, but it all went on day to day running.

The price of uranium was artifically low because of the scheme to sell off former military uranium but now is increasing rapidly. There is no nuclear power station in the world that is making a profit if the full cost is taken into account.

OK, so what is wrong? ....

The Government has been beguiled by the industry (or maybe our allies) into building new nuclear power stations, and thus, reinforcing our highly centralised system of power generation and distribution, which is very costly for small scale generators to buy into and subsidies given to nuclear mean that alternative technologies find it difficult to compete.

I would point out that we are living in a democracy and democracy should be something that happens more than once every four or five years at a General Election

Answer 18

No.

I think solar power and wind power generation have tremendous potential.

Answer 19

It's not the only one.  There are others such as natural energy sources such as wind and solar.  However, nuclear is by far superior as it is equally as clean and much more efficient and reliable.  Wind and solar are very unreliable, as constant wind and sun are a rare thing in some places.  Both are also very land intensive.  It takes vast amounts of land to house solar panels and wind mills.  If we want to shift our energy source away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the way to go.