..."eco-friendly nuclear energy"... Doesn't that sound like the worst oxymoron ever created, to you, too??

Question

Makes me gag... New and improved radioactivity! Eco-friendly radiation products, good for your health and the environment - lasts far more than 20,000 years!! I should be a copy-writer and make up more lies for corporate benefits...

Answer 1

what ever its shortfalls it is the best available option for reducing our dependancy on oil and reducing CO2 emissions

Answer 2

did you pass 6th grade science!!?

Answer 3

I support nuclear energy. Radioactive elements occur naturally in many minerals, including coal. A coal fired power plant spews all these radioactive elements into the air where as a nuclear reactor keeps them safely confined. When the fuel is spent the radioactive ash could be put back in empty uranium mines with no net change to the radiation level of environment it would seem to me.

Answer 4

The only other alternatives is a carbon tax. This is what Alan Greenspan had to say "“There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.”

Politicians are not going to introduce legislation to is going to hurt the economy.  In Canada a government commission on ways to reduce co2 emissions called for a carbon tax.  Both of the major parties dismissed such a proposal. I  am sure no political party anyway in the world would support such a proposal.  So you can forget about a carbon tax.  

Renewable energy is not stable and is costly.  Maybe in the future with improved technology it will be more viable, but not today.

Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative in reducing co2 emissions.  So take you pick.  The status quo  or continued co2 emissions.  Personally, I believe global warming is unproven, so I can live with both.

Answer 5

Why leave nuclear material laying around the ground where it occurs naturally?  If this were PCB's you would be all for cleaning up the waste and disposing it at a safe dump site.  

The same happens with nuclear power.

Nuclear power is used, shipped across the country, and disposed of in safe sites everyday.  You just aren't aware this is going on.

Nuclear power is safe, clean, reliable, and available without producing any green house gases.  We would be fools to not use nuclear.

Nuclear power is nothing more than heating water with a hot rock.  Why are liberals so scared of new and modern technology?

Answer 6

Justifying a dangerous fuel by saying that another fuel is even dirtier is hardly a reason to call nuclear clean. I am not a supporter of nuclear power but I suspect it must play a temporary role until the solar revolution takes over. It is also not true that dangerous radioactive chemicals are lying on the soil everywhere. Comparing background radiation that we cannot avoid to the vast danger posed by nuclear fuel is like comparing Mary Poppins to Count Dracula. It is also not true that nuclear waste is currently stored safely all over the country, except at power plants. Nobody actually wants it in their state or near their home but many say that we should ship it here or there but always somewhere that we are not. Nuclear folks say we should reprocess it into more fuel and plutonium, which again has to be stored. Asking the nuclear folks whether or not nuclear is safe is like asking the fox whether we should invite the chickens to dinner. Many complain that big business and politicians are running our lives but seem to forget that nuclear is big business and many politicians are in their pockets. If you really believe the nuclear waste is easy to manage, back up your truck and manage it for us.

Answer 7

I agree

Apart from the infinite costs of storing radioactive waste

which are for never factored into the calculation of the true cost of producing energy from nuclear fuels, the Nuclear industry uses huge amounts of concrete for both storage, radiation shielding and construction.

Concrete is one of the worst CO2 producing materials produced due the activation of limestone used in concrete production

If you calculate in the costs associated with the loss of life, clean up and environmental costs that just one Nuclear Power station going critical it is uneconomical

Just one serious nuclear accident in the South of England could cause an area the same size as the Chernobyl to be abandoned for generations ie the whole of the south of England! nice eh?

Answer 8

I agree with you.

Answer 9

Did you pass sixth grade science?

Answer 10

plenum22

actually nuclear energy is a GREAT source for alternative energy and our need to get off fossil fuels. the problem with it is that the technology has been abused in most countries and cases. but it can be done right and safely for sure.

for more about alternative energy and fuels visit..

http://www.agua-luna.com/alternative_ene...

http://www.agua-luna.com/alternative_fue...

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Retired Boeing Engineer now living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www agua-luna com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!