What do you think of Nuclear Power?

Question

I think it is probably the most practical for the environment since the waste it produces is very little and it produces more energy than even fossil fuels.

watch

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7-2R5lFYx_Q

What do you think after watching the video?

Answer 1

Current nuclear power is based on the fission, or splitting of atoms. Nuclear fusion, or the use of hydrogen, actually Deuterium, would be a better bet.

Nuclear power is a bad idea. There is a lot more than the fuel to be disposed of once the reactor is de-commissioned and taken apart. Workers have very limited time that they can be near the components of the reactor, and anything that carried the primary coolant. Nuclear radiation is nasty stuff. With the addition of neutrons in the mix of everything going on in such reactors, what was not radioactive to begin with. quickly becomes radioactive. It is a self poisoning, life threatening process that once started will last, for some materials, for thousands of years. If I had to make the choice between coal fired plants, and a green house gases filled atmosphere to hand off to my grandchildren, versus a land polluted by radioactive material and landfills that won't be safe for millennium, I would choose the green house gases laden atmosphere.

While I did not watch your video, I am better aware of the issues than you are. I have worked in the nuclear industry before, and am well aware of the issues with it from when the nuclear plants were first being built, 40 to 50 years ago. There is another waste that is generally not considered in the discussion of nuclear energy. Heat, what happens to the waste heat of the reactor. Gets turned to steam and drives turbines that drive generators, right? Almost, but not quite. The cooling towers that we now associate with nuclear power stations are there for a reason. The reactor has to be kept cool, relatively speaking. A lot of that heat is sent into the atmosphere, warming it up, as a waste product, and therefore, a pollutant.

There are other alternatives, but fission reactors are not part of it the answer, regardless of how sweet a deal they seem to be.

Answer 2

Its a good substitution until we find a better source, most likely nuclear fission, if thats what is called correctly, or hydrogen power.

Answer 3

Yeah and poisons folks in the neighborhood, even without a meltdown. Ever heard of chernobyl?

Answer 4

Nuclear power is safe and clean.  Nuclear waste can and will eventually be reprocessed into more fuel reducing the amount of total waste.  Old reactor vessel heads / steam generators need to be disposed of though.  However, the old 'parts' of the plant will just decay.  They cannot be used to make a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear waste has some significant benefits over other pollution.  The fact the we can easily detect it, means we can clean it up.

As far as radiation effects on humans, the workers are monitored as soon as the enter the radioactively controlled area.  The NRC only allows a specific amount per year and most plants reduce this level even more.  In cases where a worker must go to a significantly radioactive area, they are only allowed a specific amount of time in the area (like eddy current testing of steam generators), and they typically need approval of the plant and NRC.

I worked in the nuclear industry, and it is the most monitored (externally and internally) industry in the world.  There are at least two NRC inspectors on site at all times, more when they are refueling.  Radiation is a scary topic until you begin to learn about it.  Small amounts over time won't harm you, and you will know how much radiation you obtained while on site.  If radiation scares somebody so much that they oppose nuclear power, than I would expect that they wouldn't fly in planes due to the radiation as well.

Answer 5

Nuclear power for the generation is the only practical way to produce significant reductions in CO2 emissions.  If the global warming activists were truely interested in reducing green house gas emissions, and not pursuing some other agenda, they would be marching in the streets demanding a switch to nuclear power now.  Of course they are not, so it is obvious to me that their real agenda is somewhat different from what they say.  Just look at what they propose, and you will soon see what the real end game is.