George w. bush promised SAFE and RENEWABLE energy. So what does he do? he starts makin freakin nuclear power plants. i personally would rather have a co2 problem that plants have the chance of using compared to a uranium problem for the next 8 billion years. Biodiesel is the best i can think of but just not nuclear power. we already have barrels in the ocean with a hundred year life and theyve been in there for 50 so that leaves us with 50 years to find away to clean it up and remove it. **** the W!
2006-09-17 02:17:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Nuclear power is a much cleaner power and produces much more energy than any other option we have. The prior answer about windmills and other "natural" energy sound just peachy till you realize it takes energy to produce the products to create it... not to mention the enormous costs.
Your hatred for Bush is very simply misplaced due to your inaccurate understanding of what he does and how.
2006-09-17 02:29:43 · answer #1 · answered by wizardslizards 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you took all the spent uranium that has been generated in the united states for the total existance of nuclear power plants... (~40 years)
you could fill maybe a lowes or Home Depot up. The environmental impact of a lowes sized warehouse of radioactive material compared to the environmental impact of several hundred thousand fires raging 24 hours a day for the last 100 years is nothing short of one-sided.
Nuclear energy imacts the environment is such a minimal way that it should be readily clear why we don't use it. Because you can't make capitalistic empires off aquiring a lowes sized warehouse of material for the next 100 years. But you sure can make money off something there is a **** load of, and tell people theres no better alternative yet...
2006-09-17 02:23:33 · answer #2 · answered by Allen G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the main problem is that the same folks who run the coal plant as cheap as possible and avoid spending any money to clean it up are going to be the same people who run the nuke plant and have to spend money to make it safe and clean.
ps those hundred year barrels in the ocean are already leaking. we didn't know much about the behavior of materials under high radiation for long periods when we dumped them, every one of those barrels is an experiment.
we can't replace the whole amount of energy we use with clean renewable sources, the math just doesn't support it. no matter how everybody tries to get out of it, the only answer is to use a lot less.
regarding the environmental friendliness of nuclear power even if all goes well, you might want to research the environmental impact of unranium minining, which all the proponents ignore. it's enormous and overwhelms any questions regarding emissions from the powerplant or disposal of the waste.
2006-09-17 03:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by gzuckier 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would MUCH rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one. Coal plants emit way more radiation in the fly ash than you would ever get from a nuclear power plant. Heck, you would get more radiation from a brick house than a nuclear power plant. Also, coal plants do spew out a lot of other junk into the air. I'm not saying nuclear is perfect, but it is a lot better than coal.
2016-03-27 05:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of alternatives for both, but they are long-term investments and therefore put a lot of strain on the short term economics. Economics don't like that, especially with the speculative economic environment we live in now today. However, in the long term the "green" alternatives are much cheaper than nuclear energy, and they will become even cheaper when they are used in larger quantities anyway.
As long as everybody will only look at what others do to see what they are doing to tackle the climate problems, nothing will change.
2006-09-17 03:08:17 · answer #5 · answered by Caveman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you can put your obvious biases on hold long enough to really look into our power demands vs power sources and their costs, availability, reliability, safety and environmental effects, nuclear is a good source of lots of power. If you believe that carbon dioxide is really bad for the planet, nuclear is the only source of large amounts of energy available right now. We should look at all sources of energy we have available and try to get them into our mix of sources. The handling of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a scientific or engineering problem.
2006-09-19 08:04:44 · answer #6 · answered by curious george 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is a politican, not a scientist. you can't blame him alone for America's faiure to adapt renewable energies.
Start petitioning your local congressmen for more funding of projects that would help this. A proactive public is what's going to be necessary to fight off Oil lobbyists from knocking down any ability to wean ourselves off of the oil teat.
2006-09-17 02:20:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
uranium isnt a problem, you just bury it in a mountain it has little effect on the enviornment and its dangers are exaggerated. id rather pollute a mountain than breath the ****. yeah they use to dump it in the oceans but they dont anymore
2006-09-17 02:26:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure that nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient choice(unless you have a meltdown of course).
2006-09-17 02:23:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of them are good. Coal is limited, and nuclear is not stable enough. I'd say wind and tree farms.
Even if it is expensive, they should spend more $ on important things than killing people. God would not approve.
2006-09-17 02:24:03 · answer #10 · answered by Lone Star 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋