Should we replace fossil-fuel power plants with nuclear generation?

Question

Fossil fuel generation is dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nuke plants don't. This would be a great help to the problem of global warming. Keep the spent fuel in silos beneath the plant itself. This would eleminate transport worries. and if, in 20,000 years someone digs it up, they should be smart enough by then to figure out there may be a danger under the big pile of man made rubble.

Answer 1

Absolutely. Not only would it decrease co2 output, but save energy from mining, transporting, etc. The new light water reactors can never cause a meltdown or chernobyl style catastrophe unless terrorists take it over and spend 60+ hours trying to blow it up. Plus, there have been many developments in the field of how to dispose of nuclear waste, and new university research shows they can elminate all radioactive isotopes from spent rods before burying them, eliminating the need for fear of disposal.

In secure, industrialized nations we should begin switching now, and then when it is economically and technologically feasible, convert to hydrogen.

Answer 2

Nuclear power continuously generates toxic waste. The best replacement for fossil fuel is hydrogen that can be made using water and the sun. These sources will never run out and the water is replenished when the hydrogen is burned. There is a hydrogen battery in use in the space program, but anything that NASA touches automatically cost 100 times more just because they seem to get plenty of funding.

Answer 3

In an ideal world the answer is yes. But there are complications. Many parts of the world are unstable and building nuclear reactors in these regions is just plane stupid. Also developing countries do not have the infrastructure to safely support a nuclear power fleet. In these regions coal or gas power plants are needed.

Answer 4

Solving the problems of our dependence on oil (economic impacts, global warming) is enormously difficult. One solution or the other is not the answer.

The answer is all of them; nuclear, solar, wind, conservation, biofuels, clean coal, etc. We'll need them all.

Answer 5

In the long run we will have to do something to get us off coal, oil and gas, because those sources will run out sooner rather than later at the rate we are using them.

Answer 6

IRAN seems to think so.