Passing such waste onto future generation is well out of order as far as im concerned, and there will be nuclear disaters if we go down the route of nuclear power. Should we all stand together and say no to Nuclear. I know the (uk) Liberal Democrats are against it shouls people vote against it?
2006-09-09 03:54:53 · 21 answers · asked by Jabba_da_hut_07 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
i dont know i like the idea of winhd power a lot better or solar power renewable energy but nuclear power is so dangerous
2006-09-09 04:32:49 · answer #1 · answered by lulu l 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What is required here is an open mind, not a call to closed ones!!!
Intelligent debate is what is called for on this issue.
Many countries already have many nuclear power stations - France for example without accidents. How will you stop virtually all other major countries building them?
Global warming or to use it's more accepted name, climate change, has the ability it is said to overheat the planet in the next hundred years or so. Some scientists are arguing that it could be tens of years rather than hundreds!!
Most countries rely on oil and gas and are currently paying higher and higher prices for it. They are also hostage to the few countries that supply it. Whilst many forms of alternative energy exist none are capable of scalling up sufficiently and if you used them all they could still not replace oil and gas in the medium term.
Scientists and even some prominent environmentalist are now suggesting that the world may have no option but to chose the nuclear option.
Experts suggest that should the more dramatic claims for global warming be correct then it would make the use of any fossil fuel unthinkable including so called green energy sources. All the non burning alternative energy sources in the world would not cope leading to massive power deficite. That would cause massive recessions, huge numbers of deaths from people unable to heat their homes, the closedown of most transport system and therefore huge logistical problems that would cause starvation almost worldwide. Do we really want to go back to living in caves with a very short life expectancy?
Are you so totally against nuclear? What about fussion? In theory it should work and many millions of pounds are being spent on the research. If it can be made to work it will produce untold amounts of energy from sea water virtually free of any cost other than building and manning. It would be polution free and a huge step forward for mankind. The worst possible disaster would be a breakdown that damaged the plant and put it out of operation and if that happened there would be absolutely no radiation release!!!!
None of what I have said is pro nuclear, or, anti-anti nuclear, just a plea to open your mind and join the intelligent debate.
2006-09-09 11:25:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Nuclear power is the only reliable source of energy for the future.
This, along with some renewable forms of electrical generation, such as wind or wave power, is the way to go.
The French took this decision some years ago, and now have a plentiful supply of energy for years to come.
We need to get our act together very quickly now, before all the lights go out!!
2006-09-09 15:45:27 · answer #3 · answered by steve b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There hasn't been a nuclear accident in the US since 1979 and the waste is more of a political problem than a technical one. Nuclear power reduces our dependence on oil (without which you wouldn't have the plastic to create the computer on which you type this nonsense). We should build MORE nuclear facilities, underground preferably using pebble-bed reactor technology and get off oil as much as possible.
2006-09-09 11:00:53 · answer #4 · answered by Scott L 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's like any other power. If mishandled yes, it can be dangerous. Nuclear power is the best route we have as far as energy is concerned. Until somebody figures out cold fusion or finds a way to get more energy from a much smaller solar cell, we are stuck with this energy for a while.
2006-09-09 10:59:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all. The US Navy has been operating nuke ships for almost 30 years now WITHOUT INCIDENT.
The problem we've had in the past is that there have been no universal system implemented, and we've got too many Homer Simpson's running the show. If we put the Navy in charge of designing, building, and operating our nuke plants, we'd have cheap CLEAN power forever.
Forget about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. They were like Ford Pintos in the nuke plants world. EXTREMELY flawed designed.
2006-09-09 11:13:49 · answer #6 · answered by Manny 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not? It's not terribly efficient when you consider the waste byproducts. Solar, wind, hydro-electric and geothermal power alternatives are become more affordable and more efficient every year. And recent news says new power sources are now on the horizon, power sources without wasteful and toxic byproducts.
2006-09-09 11:01:54 · answer #7 · answered by crispy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its too late to say no. The nuclear cat is out of the bag.
2006-09-09 10:59:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am with you. People need to take off their blinkers . If we cannot keep our transport systems terrorist free how the heck are we going to protect our nuclear waste, never mind the possibility/eventuality of another Chernobyl!
2006-09-09 11:52:38 · answer #9 · answered by Christine H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
all generated electricity creates waste so should we not just ban electricity. even so-called green power creates waste in order to manufacture the units that give the power.
classic catch 22
2006-09-09 11:00:32 · answer #10 · answered by torbrexbones 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋