In times of energy crisis, do you agree in nuclear energy as the main source of electricity?

Answer 1

Absolutely, I do believe nuclear energy should be booming. But most people have the 'Not in my backyard' mentality. Especially since the 1970's and 80's many people have been worried about possible nuclear meltdown. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were wake up calls that maybe nuclear power isn't completely safe. But neither is coal or petroleum. The difference: fear.

Also, disposal of the radioactive waste is a big problem. Again, no one wants to live next to a nuclear waste repository. Most plants contain the waste themselves, and in fact it's not a lot of waste. It's just so hazardous, the shielding makes up the bulk.

It would take a lot to convince a large population to agree to a nuclear power station; most likely if coal, natural gas, and petroleum become too expensive. At that point, people would have to choose whether they want outrageous electric bills, or the possibility of nuclear catastrophe.

Answer 2

nuclear energy is so much better than the leading fossil fuel sources. It does not produce an harmful gas nor greenhouse gasses. Our uranium stock will last use hundreds of years. And don't worry, the way the uranium is set up, it is impossible for it to explode unlike you see in the movies.

Solar and other renewable fuel source are way too expensive. Solar energy alone cost about 6 times more expensive than what nuclear power cost. Yes its great and all but how would you like to pay a 600 dollar electric bill where it would normally cost you 100?

Answer 3

Absolutely NOT! How about solar, wind, and conservation. And there is no energy crisis. The only crisis is that the energy that businesses can charge you for are in crisis. The sun and wind, which are free, will never run out (well, at least not for a billion years or so)

Answer 4

Nuclear energy is a much better alternative to burning coal, oil or gas. However I think solar, wind, tidal and wave power should be used more. Also there's a lot more that can be done to reduce the amount of energy we use.

Answer 5

YES! . In order to reduce the unbelievable amounts of contaminants that reach levels of tons of exhaust pollutants put in our atmosphere on a daily basis from combustion power plants for small regions of our urban spreads. Oil is the overwhelming highest resource today in use and it's got to change. I have learned of some exhaust treatment applications such as inducing ammonia to revert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and also bio diesel yet it's still combustion emissions that we have to reduce in the immediate and I am in support of more research in nuclear fission.and safe containment of spent rods and bi-waste. We've got to lower the exhaust levels now at all cost. The energy corporations are not going to take a big cut to make your world a self reliant better world. It's up to us as individuals to reduce oil consumption. We are all capable today to take control by practicing conservation in our day to day living.

Answer 6

Even without an energy crisis, I agree 100%.

We should stop coddling an irrational segment of our population, and get some new nuke plants up and running. Preferrably hundreds.

Answer 7

Nuclear energy is much more clean and efficient than petroleum. All it needs is proper maintenance.

Answer 8

You know...In Europe...they let the protesters protest...but build the plants anyway.
We could and should be using Nuclear power...even to generate hydrogen from water to run our cars.

Answer 9

Yes!

Answer 10

just turn off the lights and it won't matter