What is a good conclusion for nuclear energy? It is an opinion paper on what you think about nuclear energy.?

Question

The whole essay is what your opinion is on nuclear energy, and i said its too dangerous... i need help for a good conclusion... and fast!!

Answer 1

Nuclear has many hidden costs.  the power plants have to be dismantled after their useful life at large expense.

The issue of disposing of the radioactive waste is still a hot topic.  There is an underground disposal depot in Nevada intended for this.  One problem with that is that the waste still has to be transported there by truck and rail from all over the U.S.  Many feel that there are too many chances for accidents in the transport.

"Civilian nuclear power producers benefit greatly from shifting a substantial portion of their liability for radioactive releases from accidents or attacks away from owners and investors and onto the taxpayer and the surrounding population.

These costs, both through higher insurance premiums and higher cost of capital,

would properly be reflected in the price of nuclear electricity. This subsidy has never been quantified comprehensively, but affects not only reactors, but nuclear fuel cycle facilities and nuclear materials transport as well. On a global level, the

subsidy is likely to be well in excess of $10 billion per year.

In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste -- despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen.

Taxpayers are now paying the industry millions per year for the delays, a figure that could rise sharply in years to come. Between inadequate fees, payments for delays, and most importantly, the shifting of disposal risks away from investors,

subsidies to nuclear waste management likely run into the billions of dollar per year."

I'm sorry but I've lost the link to the quoted section above, just thought I'd include it

to give you an idea of the scope of the question.

Is nuclear safe enough?  Advocates say the reactors are much safer now.  I'll give them the benfit of the doubt on that.  Still, if and when an accident does occur, the results could be devastating.  Large areas could be made uninhabitable for a long long time.

Fusion (as opposed to Fission) reactors would be much safer, but we don't have the technology for them yet.

I think we can power the country on mostly solar at less risk and less cost.  See the article in Scientific American  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

I don't rule out nuclear entirely.  It could be part of our energy mix as it already is.  It might make sense for certain parts of the country.

Answer 2

Nuclear conclusion... here goes.

I did an school assembly speach on it 20 years ago. so i will try to remember..

We have quite a good mastery of that technology and we are getting better at keeping the genie in the bottle, although accidents do and will happen. The problem is that as more accidents occur we take the risk of affecting our dna and this can affect generations down the line. As computer control systems become more reliable then the theory is that it will get safer. BUT the biggest problem is the Bi product and how it is used. - The fast breeder reactor produces weapons grade plutonium. This wouldnt be a problem but humans seem to be h**l bent on finding and using ways to destroy other humans more efficiently. So in the political climate that the world is in at present nuclear energy is not safe, not because of leaks but because it produces weapons at the same time. Its a bit like giving a baby a gun. We are not yet intelligent enough as a species to controll ourselves when it comes to dealing with conflicts. Shame.

Answer 3

the US has enough nuclear fuel for 500 to a 1000 years if it uses the right nuclear power cycle. with 300 reactors operating.

if the US reprocessed it spent reactor fuel we could get 150 times the energy from it that we do now.

plus we have a large amount of nuclear weapons pits that could be used for fuel.

we also have over 686,000 tons of depleted uranium that can also be converted to reactor fuel by a fast neutron reactor.

all this could be used if we build the right type reactors and fuel reprocessing plants.

also if we built a few accelerator driven nuclear plants we could get rid of most of the nuclear waste we have now plus the waste from reprocessing the spent fuel rods we now have stored in cooling ponds.

we also have many unmined deposits of uranium and thorium that could be used.

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

http://www.uic.com.au/nip32.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip42.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip54.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip64.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip65.htm

nuclear power along with a balanced wind. solar, geothermal, hydro and ocean power generation systems

would end our need to import oil.

plus using any excess power during non peak hours to desalinise water and pump it to inland desert areas.for.biofuelfuel crop use, inland farm use factory use or storage in for drought use.

also during non peak hours you could use the some types of nuclear power plants to make hydrogen.

the anti nuclear hype is a product of a soviet disinformation program during the cold war

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/artic...

we in the US are far behind the rest of the nuclear power using nations of the world.

even though we are the first to build reactors.

have the safest reactors

and have the best trained reactor operators in the world(US Navy trained)

the more the US gets behind on nuclear power the MORE danger there will be of another major nuclear power plant accident some where elce in the world.

as countries like russia and china build reactor for other countries.

or other countries try to build there own homebuilt reactors.

  

Source(s):

US Navy nuclear power school

Answer 4

I'm afraid my opinion is rather opposite yours.

Even before global warming hit the public consciousness, nuclear power was SAFER than the alternatives.  Yes, safer.  The USA had exactly one major accident which trashed a reactor core, but killed no one and probably harmed no one.  We had more people killed in SUGAR PLANT EXPLOSIONS THIS YEAR than we've ever had killed by commercial nuclear power in the USA (Russian problems with crappy designs don't count).

Three Mile Island is the bogeyman, but the harm it did was not from operating, but from NOT operating; when TMI went off-line, more coal had to be burned to make power.  The sulfur and fly ash emissions from coal cause measurable numbers of deaths, which can be counted up.  The coal power to replace TMI doubtless killed a number of people.

Today we're not just worrying about fly ash, we also have:

- Mercury emissions from coal causing toxic fish.

- Billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal.

- Thousands of acres of ash dumps.

- Paradoxically, coal plants emit more radioactivity as uranium, thorium, radium and radon from the coal than nuclear plants are allowed to emit.

Unless we're willing to pull back our electric energy consumption by about 90% (50% coal, 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear) we're not going to be able to limit carbon dioxide and get rid of nuclear power.  We are going to use more of it, and IMHO the risk of an accident is much less than the guarantee of flooding our coastal plains if we don't use it.