Should we consider nuclear power as an alternative way to generate electricity?

Question

With the global warming crisis getting out of hand and CO2 gas proven to warm the planet. Is it time to put quarms about the use of nuclear fuels to one side, at least in the short term.

For this to effectively work this would mean sharing the technology with other less responsible nations, what would be your resevations on this, what safety controls and checks could be placed on this.....try to look at the problem as global people.

Answer 1

First, I'd like to clear up some misconceptions.

Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy...it is a perpetual energy source.

Secondly, the problem with nuclear is the possibility of non-peaceful uses.

In some countries, like France, nuclear power is the dominant form of energy.

We are likely to head down the road to coal for the next 100 years.

Answer 2

We are considering nuclear power and there are projects trying to make fusion workable. Power of the sun on earth.

Answer 3

Considering the amounts of nuclear waste generated by nuclear power plants and the nagging, unanswerable problem of how to safely dispose of all that radioactive waste... I'd say no.

We have the technology to generate power from wind, water, solar and geothermal sources, which are renewable and much safer.  The reason we don't see them in widespread use is that the oil companies and the politicians they fund don't want it to happen.  It would cut into profits and these are people that consider profit to be more important than safe, renewable energy.  Illogical but true.

Answer 4

We definitely should. Nuclear power produces very low emissions of CO2 gas. Burns very clean. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. Net Energy Yield is low, it takes more energy to produce the nuclear power than it is for the generated electricity. Very costly, and can be disastrous if something fails or goes wrong. As bad as that sounds, I do not think we should scrap Nuclear Power. If we could develop safer and more efficient methods of running and operating nuclear power plants. Better management of funds and costs. And, important, figure out a sustainable way of disposing nuclear waste, nuclear power should be considered.

Answer 5

probably its really good when they built it away from cities..(e.g. deserts, island and stuff) so when emergencies occour it wont affect the whole city like what happend to russia

Answer 6

I have been reading the answers and most of them to do not seem to realize the complexity of the issue. There are six billion  people on earth and we wake up every day and need energy to survive.  We have become dependent on it as much as food and air.   It is our job to supply this energy with the least amount of damage to the environment.

We rely on industry to work and survive.  Industry needs a reliable source of energy.  Power outages costs industry money.  If coal power plants are going to be closed nuclear is the only alternative.  And when push comes to shove, it will be the only alternative.

What happened with Chernobyl was the result of a bankrupt country that did not have the money to ensure the safety features.  Third world countries will have to rely on hydro electric, also a clean source of power.  As for the environmental damage it causes, well people will have to decide what causes more, burning of fossil fuels or flooding a land.

Answer 7

As long as safer renewable sources of energy have not yet been developed enough to support us we should turn to nuclear power.

Answer 8

Right, like the Russians did with Chernobyl, perfect solution, why blow ourselfs up when we can slowly poison everthing with radiation!

Your a genuis!

Answer 9

No.  The waste from a nuclear plant is lethal for tens of thousands of years.  This stuff will be radioactive longer than any government can exist to control access to it.

And the existing nuclear plants in the U.S. have had some close calls and constant small accidents. They are also darned good terrorist targets.  

We need to look for cleaner sources - just because you can't see radioactivity doesn't mean nuclear power isn't 'dirty' in its own way.

Answer 10

I think other alternatives, such as wind, should be considered before nuclear.

Answer 11

"watchetcoastie"  have you been to dounrey up by thurso? the excessive cases of childhood cancers and leukemia. the constant leaks onto the surrounding beaches.. dont make me laugh Brittish nuclear fuels are lousy!!!

i would say no, particularly as i live in scotland and we already overproduce electricity by approx 80% which is then fed to the national grid for others to use.

our energy need should be on the basis of got at source, most towns/cities are sighted by rivers so whats wrong with syphoning part of the current and putting it through water wheels/turbines to create electricity for locals?   the water can then be fed back into the river downstream.

new properties should be built to a higher standard which includes compulsory forms of micro renewables. even a single solar panel or photovoltaic tiles.

i for one think its time to think small rather than big.. if its cold put a jumper on dont turn the heating up.. if its too hot, open a window dont start the air con!

if everyone made a bit more effort, even cutting there use of energy we could lessen the problem.

there are many natural resource we can make use of without the catastrophic events that we may have with nuclear. till we know how to clean or eliminate radiation we should stay well clear. if the waste can be burried "safely" lets put it under central london and other capital cities!!

Answer 12

Each house should have its own power generation system, solar pannels on the roof, wind turbines, and so on.  Each person should cycle to work, but not be followed by a Lexus, and each person should do more to help the environment.  Solar power is one of the many renewable energy things that we should take advantage of, along with Hydro Electric Power.

Answer 13

Not until we find a realistically safe way of disposing of the nuclear waste.  Our landfill problem is bad enough, but to keep finding safe places to store radioactive waste for the next 50,000 years is going to be a problem.  When we find a real, %100 safe way to launch the stuff into space (toward the sun), then maybe.

Answer 14

I think we have sufficient control on our nuclear power and technology that it is safe and we can control it. The British Nuclear Industry has a safe record and i have many friends and family that have worked at a local plant and no health issues and several retired some time ago.

Nuclear power is cheap to operate and construct and less of an eyesore than the wind turbines that would be needed to generate as much energy. Plus nuclear power is not weather dependent.

Other nations continue to build and use, so why not us. France's coastline opposite us is covered in stations... If they went wrong ( which they wont) we would be effected, so why not let us benefit from the same technology.

Answer 15

The only reason to consider nuclear power ahead of renewable sources is because its proven and we could start building now.  but we've got the technology for solar, wind, wave, geothermal etc so why aren't we doing this now!  I know this is harsh to say but what if we build massive wind and wave turbines in the artic in the areas where its melted away?  it'd provide a platform for polar bears to eat from too? silly idea actualy isn't it.

Answer 16

i don't like the idea but on the long term run it will only prove helpful so yes but only as a last resort. it is very unhealthy and our world is struggling with green house gas as it is but in the end it may be the only choice we have...