Should the US switch to Nuclear?

Question

Nuclear Power is the most efficient, clean, renewable source of power. FRANCE:the most eco-crazy country in the world, relies entirely on Nuclear Power. The US currently uses coal-coal produces almost 100 times the radiation Nuclear does and produces tons(literaly) of pollution.

not that i would like the US to become more like France, but i think a few more nuclear would help lower gas prices(gas is sometimes burned for electricity too) and be better for the enviroment.

in the almost century history of nuclear power two meltdowns have happend, only one has killed anyone and they both happened in the 1960s meltdowns in a modern reactor is nearly immpossible

nuclear material can be burned over and over again(the french have even worked out a way to burn plutonium) so nuclear waste is produced very slowly-in any case its not going to end up ANYONE's backyard, we have several hundred miles of desert.

Answer 1

Absolutely. It's the only answer that makes any sense at all.

Answer 2

The USA is already nuclear and is planning to build a new series of power generators.

It's a bad move because there are better alternatives, some of which have been mentioned. More importantly, nuclear power is MORE costly to you, the end user. Count on it: you will pay more than you should for nuclear power.

Look what the likes of Enron and others did to the cost of power in California, Arizona, Nevada. Look it up and get sick when you find out how much those ripped off the consumers.

Yes, nuclear is clean... to a point. And that point is when you have to dump the waste, or keep making plutonium, or both.

But, of course, those for nukes now won't be around to clean up the mess, will they?

Answer 3

Yes. Nuclear energy should form part of a plan to reduce reliance on petroleum resources.

In France, as of 2005, 78% of all billed electrical energy was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. France closed its last coal mine in April, 2004, and currently relies on fossil energy for less than 10% of its electricity production. Some sources cite Lithuania as the world's most nuclear-dependent nation, generating 85% of its power from nuclear reactors. However, this is mostly a testament to the country's low power demand, as Lithuania runs only a single 1500MWe RBMK-2 at its Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant.[14]

India is presently constructing more than 10 civilian nuclear power reactors - the highest in the world.

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and Vietnam, are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion. Australia is looking at whether it should adopt nuclear energy. With petrol prices at their current levels it only makes sense.

The move away from nuclear energy was due to economic reasons as much as anything else in the 1980s but the economics of nuclear power now make sense.

Answer 4

"coal produces almost 100 times the radiation Nuclear does"

Are you trying to tell me that the accident at Chernobyl (April 1986) would have been worse if the power plant had been coal powered?

Chernobyl, Ukraine. In April 1986 there was an explosive leak, caused by overheating, from a nonpressurized boiling-water reactor, one of the largest in Europe. The resulting clouds of radioactive material spread as far as the UK. Thirty-one people were killed in the explosion, and thousands of square kilometres of land were contaminated by fallout. By June 1992, seven times as many children in the Ukraine and Belarus were contracting thyroid cancer as before the accident, and the incidence of leukaemia was rising; it was estimated that more than 6,000 people had died as a result of the accident, and that the death toll in the Ukraine alone would eventually reach 40,000.

Don't think so

Answer 5

I agree as long as we can dump the waste in your back yard! Solar is the only truly clean renewable resource. I'm not trying to start a fight here just letting you know that nuclear is not good by an stretch of the imagination! Remember NIMBY? Its all being dumped into the Nevada mountains. How about using no power and living cleaner than anyone ever imagined?

Answer 6

Are you NUTZ?

Haven't you heard about Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? Love Canal?
Hanford? Yucca Mountain?

The spent fuel rods alone remain dangerously radioactive for 25,000 years. Do you want to pay to keep them fully contained for all that time? I don't!

Renewable resources are the only safe and effective way to go. Wind is free, so is the sun. Why not put some money into those first before spending 1 red cent on nuclear energy.

Answer 7

Well I think the problem with that is a fear of terrorist sabotage and a nuclear meltdown. Chernobyl melted down almost twenty years ago and the people there still feel the effects of the radiation poisoning.

Answer 8

Nuclear, hydrogen, methenol, ethanol....anything but mid-east supplies of crude. Nuclear IS a very clean and reliable source of energy. The industry in this country was killed by leftist politicans, misguided ecology activists and cheap crude oil. I predict a major comeback of the atom.

Answer 9

No. I think that the old bumper sticker "Split Wood, Not Atoms" should apply.

Results.

No more trees.

Al Gore would call for nuclear power because he wouldn't be Carbon Neutral anymore.

~<{:-)]#

Answer 10

It's sensical, however the uniformed population is scared of nuclear energy, and are afraid that it will spontaniously meltdown. This fear is largely irrational, but is widely held among the populace.

Answer 11

We already have quite a few nuclear plants in this country. Why do you ask?