Is nuclear power a dangerous temporary quick fix solution?

Question

Is nuclear power a dangerous temporary quick fix solution?

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

It is neither dangerous nor a quick fix.  We know exactly how to safely operate nuclear reactors and handle their wastes.

Answer 3

There are more operating nuclear power plants in the United States than there are in France. So what is the temporary dangerous quick fix solution to which you refer? As each year passes nuclear research finds methods which are safer than the original plants operations and controls  that reduce the operating danger of plants in existence.

Answer 4

Yes, it is dangerous.  The big problem is disposing of nuclear waste safely.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Answer 5

No

Answer 6

Nuclear power is the only viable route to significant reductions in green house gas emissions while maintaining our current society and standard of living.  If the so called environmental activists were truelly concerned with AGW, they would be marching in the streets demanding nuclear power now.  Of course, reducing AGW is not the true agenda for many of these organizations so it is not surprising that they are also opposed to nuclear power.

Answer 7

No, it is a safe clean long term energy source.

Answer 8

Any one who doesn't think its dangerous should live next to Chernobyl.

Answer 9

yes if you build reactors like russia does.

NO if you build reactors like the US Navy uses

temporary? in the US we have the fuel to run reactors for 1000 years if we use the right nuclear fuel cycle. and using this cycle we will have less high level nuclear waste the we have it STORAGE right now.

some of the generation 4+ reactor designs are multifuel and can even use u-238 depleted uranium or thorium as part of the fuel mix.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

the biggest problem with nuclear power is not the safety of the plants in the US

but the disinformation that was spread during the years by the soviets in there cold war disinformation campaigns

http://discoverthenetworks.org/articles/...

to understand nuclear power you have to study the subject to understand it

one thing that the soviet disinformation campaign did was

to totally stop the US from using the complete nuclear fuel cycle.

this leaves us with a large amount of reactor fuel rods setting in cooling ponds with no way to use the valuable fuel in them.

other countrys like france recycle them and use them again.

but the US has no operating fuel reprocessing plants so we just run the fuel through the reactor once and store it. as nuclear waste

what people except nuclear engineer dont understand is there are three ways to use nuclear fuel

one way is what we are doing now that is use it once.

the seconded way is to use it and reprocess it  till it is no longer usable to be reprocessed again, this is 20 to 50 times

the third way is after it has been used in a regular reactor and reprocessed a few times then reprocess and used in a  special type reactor called a breeder reactor,

it can be reused in regular reactors again a few times them

then back to the breeder reactor again.

this can go on for 500 to 1000 times.

since the life of nuclear fuel in a standard reactor is 2 to 3 years this means that the life of fuel in this third way could be a 1000 years.

plus this allows us to use non standard fuels like thorium and depleted uranium to be transformed unto usable reactor fuel.

also with this you can use a accelerator driven reactor to burn up the waste from the reprocessing of all the spent reactor fuel .

this will leave NO radioactive waste to have to find a place to dispose of

Answer 10

YES. Nuclear energy is a short term answer to an urgent problem. Nuclear Energy from Uranium is not renewable so Nuclear energy can only be a short term solution.

Our energy consumption is growing faster than supply.  The use of fossil fuels in electricity generation is a key contributory factor of atmospheric discharges and emissions of CO2 (a greenhouse gas). Nuclear has the advantage that a large production of energy can be made without these atmospheric discharges and Greenhouse Gas emissions.

Nuclear plants take a long time to build (8 years plus?)  We need to reduce overall energy consumption, green energy can not meet demand because we have not yet built an infrastructure to supply greener, renewable energy sources.

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce.

Produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel.

Nuclear power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels.

It is a proven method of producing electricity.

Nuclear waste is only a problem in the place it is held/stored, not globally.

Nuclear plants are much cleaner and cheaper to fuel.  

Less emissions from Nuclear plants with very strict regulations

Produces small amounts of waste.

Nuclear power does not produce smoke, carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) or sulphur dioxide so does not contribute to global warming or acid rain

The Problems with Nuclear Energy:

Negative Public Opinion

Nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build, maintain, run and decommission.

Nuclear reactors have a short life span, only lasting about forty to fifty years.

We need to contain/store nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Governments in charge of nuclear energy/waste disposal only hold office short term.

Management issues of radioactive waste.

Public perception about Nuclear Energy as the technology was first developed as an American Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Emissions can be better controlled, but are not necessarily safer.

Transportation of radioactive materials.

Security Nuclear plants are targets for terrorists.

Nuclear Energy from Uranium is not renewable so Nuclear energy can only be a short term solution.

Health implications of mining the Uranium.

Serious accidents Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster resulting from bad management and design. Contaminated large areas with radioactivity.

NIMBY – few people want a nuclear plant in their locality.

Coal plants are a lot cheaper to build than nuclear plants.

Control of the uranium deposits (?) possibly

Careless disposal of waste in the past has led to pollution of land, rivers and the seas.

Is it dangerous? It is a matter of opinion, Yes in my view because we can not really know the impact on the environment. We can't know the possible effects of containing/storing it because we need to contain/store nuclear waste for thousands of years.

****** EDIT*****

EMT-B interesting answer and links. Sorry to ask here but you don't allow email. Do you know where I can find online detailed information about how UK process and deal with Nuclear waste? Thanks.