Do you support nuclear energy?

Question

I don't, at all. I mean, how people can still see it as an option after what happened in Chernobyl?
We don't need a big disaster to be victims of radioactivity again:
La Hague, Normandy, France — Radioactive waste from a storage facility in Normandy, France is leaking into groundwater and is being used by local farmers for their dairy cattle, according to a report published today by French laboratory ACRO (1). Water contamination from the CSM waste disposal facility migrates from the dumpsite into the underground aquifers used by farmers, where levels of radioactivity are on average 750 Bequerels per litre, over seven times the European safety limit of 100Bq/l. In agricultural land close to the dumpsite levels in the underground aquifer averaged 9000 Bq/l or 90 times above the safety limit during 2005.

Answer 1

Pros -
1. Little Pollution

As demand for electricity soars, the pollution produced from fossil fuel-burning plants is heading towards dangerous levels. Coal, gas and oil burning power plants are already responsible for half of America's air pollution. Burning coal produces carbon dioxide, which depletes the protection of the ozone. The soft coal, which many power plants burn, contains sulfur When the gaseous byproducts are absorbed in clouds, precipitation becomes sulfuric acid.. Coal also contains radioactive material. A coal-fired power plant emits more radiation into the air than a nuclear power plant.
The world's reserves of fossil fuels are running out. The sulfurous coal which many plants use is more polluting than the coal that was previously used. Most of the anthracite, which plants also burn, has been used up. As more soft coal is used, the amount of pollution will increase. According to estimates, fossil fuels will be burned up within fifty years. There are large reserves of uranium, and new breeder reactors can produce more fuel than they use. Unfortunately this doesn't mean we can have an endless supply of fuel Breeder reactors need a feedstock of uranium and thorium, so when we run out of these two fuels (in about 1000 years), breeder reactors will cease to be useful. This is still a more lengthy solution to the current burning of coal, gas, and oil.

2. Reliability

Nuclear power plants need little fuel, so they are less vulnerable to shortages because of strikes or natural disasters. International relations will have little effect on the supply of fuel to the reactors because uranium is evenly deposited around the globe. One disadvantage of uranium mining is that it leaves the residues from chemical processing of the ore, which leads to radon exposure to the public. These effects do not outweigh the benefits by the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. Coal burning leaves ashes that will increase future radon exposures. The estimates of radon show that it is safer to use nuclear fuel than burn coal. Mining of the fuel required to operate a nuclear plant for one year will avert a few hundred deaths, while the ashes from a coal-burning plant will cause 30 deaths.

3. Safety

Safety is both a pro and con, depending on which way you see it. The results of a compromised reactor core can be disastrous, but the precautions that prevent this from happening prevent it well. Nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from American nuclear power plants. There are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. A series of barriers separates the radiation and heat of the reactor core from
the outside. The reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is surrounded by a thick concrete wall. This is inside a sealed steel containment structure, which itself is inside a steel-reinforced concrete dome four feet thick. The dome is designed to withstand extremes such as earthquakes or a direct hit by a crashing airliner. There is also a large number of sensors that pick up increases in radiation or humidity. An increase in radiation or humidity could mean there is a leak. There are systems that control and stop the chain reaction if necessary. An Emergency Core Cooling System ensures that in the event of an accident there is enough cooling water to cool the reactor.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cons -

1. Meltdowns

If there is a loss of coolant water in a fission reactor, the rods would overheat. The rods that contain the uranium fuel pellets would dissolve, leaving the fuel exposed. The temperature would increase with the lack of a cooling source. When the fuel rods heat to 2800°C, the fuel would melt, and a white-hot molten mass would melt its way through the containment vessels to the ground below it. This is a worst case scenario, as there are many precautions taken to avoid this. Emergency water reservoirs are designed to immediately flood the core in the case of sudden loss of coolant. There are normally multiple sources of water to draw from, as the low pressure injection pumps, containment spray system, and refueling pumps are all potentially available, and all draw water from different sources. The disaster at Three Mile Island was classified as a partial meltdown, caused by the failure to supply coolant to the core. Although the core was completely destroyed, the radioactive mass never penetrated the steel outlining the containment structure. Several feet of special concrete, a standard precaution, was capable of preventing leakage for several hours, giving operators enough time to fix the flooding system of the reactor core. The worst case of a nuclear disaster was in 1986 at the Chernobyl facility in the Ukraine. A fire ripped apart the casing of the core, releasing radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. Thirty-one people died as an immediate result. And estimated 15,000 more died in the surrounding area after exposure to the radiation. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are just examples of the serious problems that meltdowns can create.

2. Radiation

Radiation doses of about 200 rems cause radiation sickness, but only if this large amount of radiation is received all at once. The average person receives about 200 millirems a year from everyday objects and outer space. This is referred to as background radiation. If all our power came from nuclear plants we would receive an extra 2/10 of a millirem a year. The three major effects of radiation (cancer, radiation sickness and genetic mutation) are nearly untraceable at levels below about 50 rems. In a study of 100,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been 400 more cancer deaths than normal, and there is not an above average rate of genetic disease in their children. During the accident at Three Mile Island in America, people living within a 50 mile radius only received an extra 3/10 of one percent of their average annual radiation. This was because of the containment structures, the majority of which were not breached. The containment building and primary pressure vessel remained undamaged, fulfilling their function.

3. Waste Disposal

The byproducts of the fissioning of uranium-235 remains radioactive for thousands of years, requiring safe disposal away from society until they lose their significant radiation values. Many underground sites have been constructed, only to be filled within months. Storage facilities are not sufficient to store the world’s nuclear waste, which limits the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year. Transportation of the waste is risky, as many unknown variables may affect the containment vessels. If one of these vessels were compromised, the results may be deadly.

When you weigh the pros and cons I dont think the pros out weigh the cons. My vote is No way in hell do I support nuclear energy or anything nuclear.

Answer 2

I don't, at all. I mean, how people can still see it as an option after what happened in Chernobyl?
We don't need a big disaster to be victims of radioactivity again:
La Hague, Normandy, France — Radioactive waste from a storage facility in Normandy, France is leaking into groundwater and is being used by local farmers for their dairy cattle, according to a report published today by French laboratory ACRO (1). Water contamination from the CSM waste disposal facility migrates from the dumpsite into the underground aquifers used by farmers, where levels of radioactivity are on average 750 Bequerels per litre, over seven times the European safety limit of 100Bq/l. In agricultural land close to the dumpsite levels in the underground aquifer averaged 9000 Bq/l or 90 times above the safety limit during 2005.

Answer 3

The United States has never had an incident that I can remember involving problems with Nuclear Energy. I'm not saying that I think it's the best way to get power, but it is the most efficient. The sad truth is that we don't really have the technology to replace it. We are developing clean coal technology, which will help in some areas. Also, California uses a lot of Hydro-electricity and well as solar. And many mid western states use Wind power(I cant think of the scientific term).

I think Nuclear energy is safe for now. We have the best technicians and scientists on the job. However, I would like to see a replacement. Something more Eco-friendly. But, until then we are stuck with Nuclear, there's no real way around it that I see at his time.

Answer 4

I do not support nuclear energy. I am totally against it because we do not have full control of that immense power nor do I think that we ever will. Sure it does provide an incredible amount of energy that we can use but to what point? Is the need for its power so great that we have to come to our own deaths and put at risk millions by our necessity to have control of too great a power? Besides that there's the toxic waste, THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DISPOSE OF IT!! They either bury it or place it in silos...They think they can control nuclear energy when they don't even know how to deal with its by-products. Funny how this type of science is of the future well there might not be a future...

Answer 5

The problem is demand is high and the other options either can't supply enough power for the need that exist or are dangerious in other ways.

So what do we do in place of it.

Solar will not supply enough power.
Wind relies on changing whether conditions. and will not supply enough power.
Hydroelectic only works for those who are close to a strong river and it screws up the environment for anyone who is down river of the dam.
Burning Coal has gotten much much better but it is still limited in supply and minning coal destroys the environment.
Burning Oil is expensive period and Oil is getting to the point of being in shorter supply.
The technology for fusion isn't there yet and many believe is a pipe dream other than in theory for any practical application.

About the only thing that could work as well as nuclear (and I don't mean this seriously) would be to start a jail work program where inmates are made to walk on tread mills to generate power. It would be clean, with no negative byproducts (except maybe healthier inmates with strong legs) and the power source is unlimited (or so it seems). Heck you could even offer inmates who are getting out jobs in the power factory to help them on the outside.

OK all joking aside, your right nuclear is dangerious. But it's our best answer at this time. The trick is before you can condem something completely and take it away, you typically have to come up with the replacement.

Answer 6

Nuclear power is very simple. A controled fission reaction produces heat. That heat is used to heat water into steam. The steam is used to power a steam turbine. That then turns a generator and produces electrical power. So whats wrong with that? We have Submarines and Navy ships running for 10-15 years on a single lump of fuel. And the Navy has never had a reactor problem. Many deep space probes also use nuclear power beacuse the solar energy is too weak. Waste? We are build a national repository in Nevada to handle the waste. Is there a need for this power? Yes, while pricey, this is the best option to provide long term power needs. Electric cars need electical power. Hydrorgen for fuel cels need high ammounts of power to break water into hydrogen. Other power forms like Hydroelectric power have serious environmental effects on fish & flood control. Solar? Doesn't work in the dark........ So if you want to contribue to that other Yahoo lib cause of being anti oil. You should be pro Nuclear.

Answer 7

There are two sides to every coin, similarly... for everything that has been discovered there are two sides one good and he other evil.

Talk about cars- They have certainly improved on the transport facilities. But on the other hand it has increased pollutio to an extent where treaties are being signed so that there should b reduction on the pollution part.

The air conditioning and the refrigerators booth have revolutionarised the way of of living. But both emit Cloro flouro carbon that has already poked a hole in the ozone because of which we live to day.

But with each advancing technology that has come forward we have been able to make technology better. That is why there is an option today of having cars that dony pollute and refrigerators without CFC.

The Nuclear energy that has been discovered is an alternate source of energy and with the increasing population and decreasing oil and petrol this would probably be a very very good source of providing energy.
But the downside is that till date we havent refined our security and technology to the extent that the accidents caused because of the reactors can be avoided.
And this is what that has to be done.Refine the tecnology and make peaceful use of the science that can make the future of earth and energy.

Answer 8

Yes, 100 % I support Nuclear energy! You have been subject to a lot of propaganda on the subject. First off Nuclear power has been in safe use world wide for 60 years. Us Reactors have a different design and safety standard than those in the Ex-USSR or Europe. Nuclear power is very simple. A controled fission reaction produces heat. That heat is used to heat water into steam. The steam is used to power a steam turbine. That then turns a generator and produces electrical power. So whats wrong with that? We have Submarines and Navy ships running for 10-15 years on a single lump of fuel. And the Navy has never had a reactor problem. Many deep space probes also use nuclear power beacuse the solar energy is too weak. Waste? We are build a national repository in Nevada to handle the waste. Is there a need for this power? Yes, while pricey, this is the best option to provide long term power needs. Electric cars need electical power. Hydrorgen for fuel cels need high ammounts of power to break water into hydrogen. Other power forms like Hydroelectric power have serious environmental effects on fish & flood control. Solar? Doesn't work in the dark........ So if you want to contribue to that other Yahoo lib cause of being anti oil. You should be pro Nuclear.

Answer 9

Yes, I support nuclear energy, with the following exceptions:

1. I do not support sloppy, careless, and criminaly negligent ways of getting and handling it, however, any type of energy can be obtained and handled in such a way as to produce a disaster. Human ingenuity in this respect is boundless.
2. I also do not support nuclear energy being available to Iran, North Korea, or any other country that can be possibly suspected of ever wanting to combine it with missiles and use it on me.

That being said - it's possibly the most efficient energy out there.

Answer 10

Yes I do.

You cannot equate Chernobyl with the technology that we have today. The plant in Russia was contained only in a sheet metal building. It was made to run continuously. You had to take action to shut it down. The plants here are made to shut down automatically, and require someone at the controls all the time to keep it running. The containment structures here in the US are massive. I have been up close and personal to the buildings and facilities at Diablo Canyon. They are not perfect, but they are much safer than even crossing the street on foot. And, I might add, there have been no reports of radiation leaking or causing any injuries there.

The only nuclear situation we have had here was at Three Mile Island and there were no lasting effects from that incident.

Spent nuclear fuel has to be stored somewhere. That can be done safely and effectivley.

The need for nuclear power plants is becoming more important all the time. If we were able to drill for oil here in the United States, then we might be able to continue for a few more years without more nuclear power plants. But, we have some of the richest oil fields in the world. In Alaska and off the coast of California and the "Tree Huggers" won't let us drill there. We have one of the largest Natural Gas deposits in the world near Delano, California, but they won't let us drill there either. It just doesn't make sense to continue increasing our need for energy, without increasing our capacity to produce it.

So, do I support Nuclear Energy? You bet! Do we need Nuclear Energy? You bet! Will we develope more Nuclear Energy? Not as long as people who do not have knowledge of how it is done and how safe it can be are still in charge of the way things are done here in the U.S.

Answer 11

Chernobyl? a Russian reactor, poor design, no containment, poorly trained operator in a hurry to go home, and a French disposal facility that was never properly monitored until AFTER they had a proven problem, and that's ALL you can come up with for paranoia about radiation?

How about radiation in homes due to the decay of naturally occurring (maybe you've never heard of radon, I guess).
Nuclear power is not a perfect alternative, but burning petrochemicals is? (and petroleum wastes are estrogenic).

Yes, I support nuclear power generation, but for crying out loud let's fund it in such a way that we don't boil a giant teakettle to spin turbines- let's develop a better way to convert all that mass into energy and maybe use the energy directly instead of having huge losses due to parasitic loads and high inefficiency- and maybe take a serious look at the physics abandoned back in Maxwell's day because nobody saw a way to make sense of it back then- there are ways to draw power from the very fabric of the universe around us, but because it would make every home energy self sufficient Big Oil will never let it be funded unless the "masses" become educated enough to quit supporting fascist wars for oil exploitation!