Why are there so many advocates for nuclear energy?

Question

Especially, as we still haven't found a way to effectively deal with the byproducts: radioactive, toxic waste?

Answer 1

How do you solve the problem of having to transport radioactive waste from all over the U.S. to Yucca Mtn Nevada.   I suppose there won't be any accidents, just like there are no oil tanker spills.  

The person who said a nuclear power plant accident was no big deal because only a few thousand people would be killed must be dreaming.  Those killed by such an event would only represent a portion of the damage done.  Depends on how close to heavy populations it is.   A vast area could be made uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years.

from  Encyclopedia of Earth

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ten_most_...

"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. "

We  have the technology now to have nearly 100%  solar power grid in this century, or 65% by 2050  and never have to transport any fuel of any kind.  

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...    Scientific American article

Calls for spending less public  money than we now give oil companies in subsidies.  The hidden costs of oil, including subsidies to oil companies is about 40 times the cost of doing this.

Answer 2

In a nutshell, because it promises the production of incredible amounts of energy without the CO2, NOx etc... production associated with traditional fossil fuels.

Answer 3

Well, sure we have. Bury it in that mountain in Utah or Nevada.

Nuclear is clean and efficient, relative to other biofuels. Sure, there might be an explosion once every 50 years, and a few thousand ppl might be killed or injured. But look at all the millions who benefit healthwise from a clean atmosphere.

There's always a tradeoff of some sort, no matter.

Only way to go.

Answer 4

I am assuming you want to see the elimination of coal power.

Every day spent burning coal for power translates into damaged lungs and ecosystem destruction. If the world wants to keep plugging in big-screen TVs and iPods, it needs a steady source of power. Wind and solar can't produce the "base-load" (or everyday) steady supply needed, and the only realistic -- and safe -- alternative is nuclear.

Here is a good article with more info.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth...

Answer 5

Well I am an advocate because I believe it is the best solution for our energy needs. It is clean, reliable and the problems are few. You are right that there are issues but if we all agreed that in the real world it is the best alternative and allowed the scientists the resource to solve the problems then they could.

Covering our countryside with wind turbines that are inefficient, sod all use on a calm day and require thousands of them to power an Anne Summers torch - is a nice, fluffy, pie in the sky idea for some. Normally those who live miles away from where they shall be sighted of course. Tide and solar too have limitations. I am not against alternative sources per say but I am really ticked off with the ecomentalists who come out with the emotional blackmail line against nuclear as they don't have an open mind to exploring it. It seems to be either you agree with them or are lambasted as some kind of immoral monster.

All energy sources come with risks, dangers and problems and as I say I believe that nuclear problems can be solved and is truly workable and practical solution.

Edit - to the young lady Sandy below. I appreciate your stand point but you can not hold up Chernobyl as a typical example for ever. The technology has moved on so much since then and new modern built reactors and stations will have little in common with the old Soviet technology. The Comet was the worlds first commercial jet powered airliner and after a while it  kept falling out the skies due to a design flaw. If people had just given up there and then, then we would not have airplanes as we know them now. It would be wildly inaccurate to say that all jet airplanes are unsafe today and we should not have any because the Comets windows were causing stress points all those years ago.

Answer 6

They may be advocates, but do they live near them ?  Does Yucca Mountain or Chernobyl sound familiar ?

Answer 7

I am for it because it is both efficient and rather cheap. Chernobyl was built by the Soviet Union and nothing they build works anyways.  I believe there are 128 working plants in the US and I have been to several and they have not melted down so I think we have that problem fixed not to mention Carriers and Subs run by nuke power.

People just want to complain not actually fix a problem that is why. If the issue went away what would they complain about? Maybe the something new just to create more problems. There is no pleasing some people sorry.

Answer 8

Nuclear energy is not the answer long term. Anyone remember Chernobyl and the nuclear disasters of the 80's? That's the kind of stuff that can wipe out a population then make the land uninhabitable indefinitely.

Answer 9

Any society that places all its reliance on one single energy source is bound to have problems. All these people that have been knocking solar, wind, and the plethora of other energy sources have failed to take into account that, while, of course if we relied only on solar, we'd be screwed on a cloudy day, we would still have several back-up sources, as well as (if scientists can ever figure it out efficiently, that is) fuel-cell technology that would store excess energy for cloudy, windless days.

Relying solely on one major fuel source is what's got us into this mess to begin with. It's time, as stockbrokers would say, to start diversifying our portfolio.

Answer 10

Many environmentalists now support nuclear power because the risks of global warming are far greater.

Solar, wind, etc., just can't do it all, particularly with using electricity or hydrogen for transportation.

The problem of waste disposal has been demonstrably solved, it's just a political problem to designate a site.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

Answer 11

people tend to go for the easy , "near sighted"  route, instead of looking at thing on the long run..that is why..

Answer 12

Most advocates are political and all political wants to keep people paying a business.  We would not need anymore power plants if government would empower the people to solve the problem with a fair deal by making solar panels a 7 year payback on investment.  This would cause smart investors to invest in there house with 25 year solar panels.  For years the Internet has had stories of new solar panel advances that are going to make the selling price $2.00 a watt.  Why would the price come down to $2.00 dollars a watt when some states like California and Florida are offering state rebates of $2.20 and $4.00 per watt rebates while bumping up property taxes to make up for it.  Instead they keep the price up to $5.50 to $8.50 a watt which is a 20+ year investment making it a crazy idea.  All there ideas involve you writing a check to someone else at the end of the month.

Answer 13

I have been following the nuclear industry for a long time. They have actually had scientists working on solving the many hazards for over 50 years and still their best idea is to either bury it ... some place where they do not live ... or recycle the waste and produce less waste but waste nonetheless and plutonium. Before we spend another dime on nuclear, we would be wise to ask solar experts to tell their story. Solar appears to be very close to competing but at least, let's learn about it. The risk of serious mistakes could set us back much farther than we are ready to manage.

Asking the nuclear industry if it is safe reminds me of the old story about asking the fox to guard the henhouse? It is true that there is no visible evidence of danger, but then a poisonous snake may look exactly like a non poisonous one but you'd be foolish to pick it up carelessly. Additionally, there are not that many nuclear power plants worldwide but there will soon be many more. Since nobody wants the current waste, what will those other countries do with theirs? How would we possibly control their destiny and how will it affect ours?

Answer 14

Go with the 1st or the 9th answers