explain why nuclear energy is no longer considered to be solution to providing for the worlds energy needs?

Answer 1

Because it was thought to be clean, nevertheless you produce radioactive waste that nobody wants to deal with it. You have to think here in the long term storage of nuclear waste. This has resulted in very expensive repositories and the political difficulties associated to it. Would you like to have a repository build in your town? Lets put it somewhere else right. Would you like to be close to the road that transport the waste to the repository...

You can see why, it is no longer convenient. Until we develop a better way to deal with the waste (there are military and security issues here), nuclear energy will have to wait and not expand.

Answer 2

What Nuclear power needs to overcome to provide the energy requirements of the world

1) Public mistrust

2) Safely disposing of the nuclear reactor waste which is highly radioactive

3) Security of the radioactive waste, terrorism is a major problem to consider

4) Plant safety, an accident at a Nuclear Power plant could have serious ramifications, look at Three Mile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island
and Chernobyl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

5) High costs of construction, monitoring, and maintenance

Nuclear plants are still being built worldwide.

Alternative sources of power, solar, wind are not as reliable to produce energy, and take up much more space. Most the the worlds hydro-electric sites have already been developed. Coal/oil/Natural gas plants are using up an non-renewal energy source

So I question if what you have asked is a true picture as the status of Nuclear Energy. If it is an assignment, I always took delight in arguing the opposite of an statement (if I thought it was wrong). From my points, you can see I do not agree with your premise that Nuclear Energy is no longer a solution.


2007/1/18 Just an update for you, Canada again is discussing a Nuclear future, the Alberta Tar sands has more oil reserves then Saudi Arabia, just not easy to obtain. Uses energy to extract, which is creating a large amount of green house gases.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070109.RHUSKY09/TPStory/Business

Answer 3

Although nuclear power can provide for the energy needs of the future, but it is not a "green" energy. The social cost we all have to pay in the future outweighs the benefits of nuclear plants / nuclear energy, taking the lessons from our past experiences with nuclear plant all over the world. Alternatively, more R&D should be channeled into areas of wind, solar, & water energy generation. The key word here is alternative "green" energy. After all, we only have 1 earth and it is clear to all of us that polluting it further would only result in killing ourselves and our future generations. Only "green" energy guarantees our & future generations' continued existence on this one and only home we have; Earth. As in all developments, initial development costs are high but as we develop and move towards "green" energy, there is invariably a tipping point where "green" energy becomes economically viable energy. Furthermore, how can human kind trade-off the cost of developing clean energy against the known certainty of pure negative environmental effects of nuclear plants ? There should not be a consideration of developing further nuclear power plants at all, in the face of certainty of the negative effects to the environment. "Green" and clean energy should be pursued as the future energy solution for the future.

Answer 4

Because, so far, every method attempted for making it work on a small scale hasn't worked - that is it hasn't produced more energy out than is put in to make the equipment function. Latest attempt is using lasers to squash deuterium and tritium pellets.

Answer 5

One word - Environmentalists..

It's my belief we'd find ways to deal with the waste if the ecowhacks would shut the hell up and let the nuclear scientists work.