Why are people against nuke power?

Question

its clean, it makes heck of a lot of energy, so why not?

Answer 1

It's not about CO2 for everyone - for many, it's about hating the "American consumerist lifestyle."

There are parts of it that I don't like either, so I don't live it.    

But I don't try to force others not to.

Can't say the same thing for Greenpeace, UCS, PIRG.....

Answer 2

because it doesn't achieve the REAL end of the awg policy, which is to destroy america.

Answer 3

what do we do with the nuclear waist? and what if there is an accident?

Answer 4

BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!...... where all dead

thats why

Answer 5

Because most people are still stuck in the old mind-set that told them that nuclear was evil and will kill us all if we use it.  The funny thing is, nuclear energy is among the cleanest, most efficient, cheapest energy sources we have available.  Most of the comments above are obviously based in the old fear of what could happen if there was an accident, or based on ridiculous, empty claims made by opponents.  It's true, the distaster at Chernobyl was terribly detrimental to the people and environment surrounding the plant.  However, the Russians skimped on just about everything and it was poorly constructed.  Three Mile Island, although a disaster, was completely contained within the constructs of the building.  The structure did exactly was it was supposed to do; contain radioactive materals if there was such an event. Today, technology has improved so much, a distaster like that will likely never happen again, and if it does, it will be contained.  Even the founder of Greenpeace has recinded on previous claims and dangers of nuclear energy admitting that it is clean and safe and even the waste isn't nearly as hazardous for nearly as long as once previously thought. In short, it's gotten a bad rap overall for two isolated incidents and the potential of what could happen, one of which was the fault of shoddy construction.  Basically, it's the energy of the future if we want cheap, reliable, efficient, clean fuel.

Answer 6

Nuke power produces waste which is vary dangerous and woud remain for thousands of years.

Nuclear fuel which is uranium is also depleting.

In the name of nuclear power bad countries are processing uranium for nuclear weapon causing global threat.

It is a good target for terrorist and if accident occurs then it will kill people in large amout. See for Cherynobyl accident in russia which aftected  whole europe, causing huge life and property loss.

It is power beyond our control so better not to play with it.

Answer 7

I'm not against it, although it's no panacea that's going to solve our problems. There is not that large a world supply of uranium, so without breeder reactors we face a dwindling supply of fuel. Also, water-cooled reactors are prone to problems which can become catastrophic.  There are safer reactor designs (such as high-temperature gas reactors) that have been sitting around gathering dust for years because the US has been out of the new reactor business.

Answer 8

OK lets discuss they why about nuclear power it is the second cleanest and safest form of electricity generation there is and the second lowest in cost.

First with sensible and realistic regulations there is not waste to store or dispose of. OK why do we have a waste problem today with nuclear materials. This is easy while he was president 30 years ago Jimmy Carter created several special presidential orders that only a two thirds majority of congress can override. These are:

All nuclear materials that have reached a certain life span where they need to be recycled into fresh materials must be stored, not recycled/

Any new construction nuclear facilities for commercial use must be vetted by legal attack through the court system before construction can begin. After construction begins any further legal challenges even those with no merit for delay purposes must be completed before construction may resume.

The space program and its space based power generation system where to be scrapped except for a minor scientific orbital station and a minor number of planetary explorer robots to give the semblance of a continuing space program.

Interest rate usury caps were to be removed allowing interest rates to float to what the market would bear. This has been the major contributor to run away inflation for the last 30 years and also to the boom and bust speculative markets in stocks and commodities.

These were done for the sole benefit of several major oil companies and banks who had helped put him in office. Republicans and libertarians have tried to break these orders for 30 years but they have never been able to get the number of votes needed because the oil company funded democrats have kept them from getting the needed two thirds vote. To solve all these problems vote for any party but democrats this year for any office state or federal. Then maybe a coalition to put this country back on the road to the future can be built.

Answer 9

If there are no problems nuclear is clean, but if there are problems it is a very big problem

Some problems that have already happened

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#power

Answer 10

Its extremely expensive.   Not to produce the power, but to build the facility, tear it down and store the waste.   One of the most expensive forms of energy out there.   Plus we must be afraid of the terrorists, right?   They're all planning on how to blow one of them up the prez says.   Add to that, the nuke plants are made by the lowest bidder.   Would you want to fly in a plane made by someone who had to cut corners to come anywhere near the contract price?   I wouldn't want to live anywhere near a reactor made under the same circumstances.

Answer 11

Nuclear energy is very clean...it's safe because of newer reactor design and it's long lasting.  I'm all for it.  In North America, nobody's ever died from a nuclear facility leak or meltdown.  But it isn't the easiest to construct and it takes a lot of time and money to get one rolling, so maybe that's why there aren't more of them.

Answer 12

well actually its not clean, Nuclear power, though they say its clean isn't it produces LOTS of pollution in which the company often tries to hide them by dumping the barrels into lakes and oceans etc.

Besides, THE MOST RISKY THING, is the fact that Nuclear Power gives off lots of radiation, which can physically and mentally damage the human body's, which isn't safe since lower income families live closest to the Power plants, since the houses are cheap due to the risk of radiation which can also cause cancer.

I challenge you to do research and I'm sure you'll find many sites to prove my point.

If you wish for any additional advice on this or another problem contact me USER NAME BELOW

Sincerely,

Cameron Doerr                    USER NAME:          camerondoerr

Answer 13

Honestly, it is because most people have no understanding of it.  They don't know what goes on inside a reactor core, other than the basics.  They don't understand the training and safety features inherent to the culture of nuclear power.  That's not meant to be derogatory in any way.  I knew nothing about nuclear power until I joined the Navy.  Many people use Cheyrnobl as an example why nuclear is bad, but the Russians used terrible designs for their commercial and Naval reactors.

Three Mile Island brought about the modern day methodology for nuclear safety.

The next generation of reactors are designed to minimize fuel usage, and thus minimize waste.

Misconceptions and misunderstanding are the biggest detterence to people accepting nuclear power.  Many people who live near nuke plants don't even know it.  There are more than 100 operating reactors in the US, and we rarely hear about them.  That's got to tell you something.  There are 10 to 20 open applications for new reactors in the approval process.  

Nuclear power makes sense.  Wind and Solar make sense too, but they don't have nearly the capacity that nuclear has, and they actually have a more noticeable negative impact on the local environment than nuclear.  A combination of all three will be the solution to oil free electricity.  Even "cleaned coal" will have a place.

Answer 14

Too many superstitions based on Hollywood movies.  Three Mile Island happened 30 years ago.  Chernobyl was caused by cutting corners and not inherent in nuke power itself.  Other countries recycle spent fuel rods, we can too.  So it is not that expensive, it just has to be done wisely and without the emotionalism and superstitions.



Sure beats using a food staple as a fuel source and wondering why the cost of food is so high.  

Answer 15

The enviromental movement won their battle against Nuclear Power 30 years ago. They convinced enough, media, politicans, and "E" groups to interviene with the licencing process enough to drive costs out of sight.

Some of the posts you are getting prove people would rather be scared and misinformed, while complaining about the high price of energy.

Even environmentalists can't argue about Nuclear's carbon footprint, because there is none.

Nuclear waste is less then 1/10000 the volume of a coal plant and it can be recycled. Yes it is radioactive, but no one has ever been hurt by nuclear plant radioactivity in the US, including the TMI meltdown.

Chernoble is another story.

Answer 16

it's DEADLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

Answer 17

There is one and only one reason we do not have plentiful nuclear power in the US today. The oil companies will not make money from them.

Answer 18

Three words: Three Mile Island.

Answer 19

Probably the nuclear waste, or the dangers of nuclear leakage/meltdowns.