No new nuclear plants in 30 years. Nuclear is a no-brainer relative to fossil fuels. Fissile not fossil, right? So, why no nuke plants?
2007-01-25 08:46:34 · 9 answers · asked by Murphy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Bush boy -- The waste can be dealt with, not a concern. Shoot it to space, to the sun where it will not even be noticed, as suggested by another Yahoo! guy. This is not a reason to stay away from nuke power.
2007-01-25 08:55:10 · update #1
Trig -- you are right, I believe three mile island has nothing to do with it. This is a ruse, a canard propogated by those with interests in fossil.
2007-01-25 08:56:25 · update #2
Jesi, you rock!
2007-01-25 09:12:46 · update #3
There can be no realistic energy plan that reduces reliance on fossil fuels that excludes nuclear energy. They are safe, reliable and produce far more energy than they do waste. The waste is managable and does not take the same toll as mercury and other pollutants from fossil fueled generating plants.
The environmental groups (funded by fossil fuel reliant energy companies) managed to scare people into being "anti-nuke" through lies and propaganda. In the ensuing 30 years almost every country except the United States has built nuclear power plants because of their yield and safety.
There are downsides to every alternate fuel source, not the least of which is nobody wants wind farms near them and solar is great on a residential basis but is not economical for industrial or multifamily units.
2007-01-25 09:09:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah man you got it? Bravo! Bush wanted a more nuclear energy plants to power our country. But he was voted down. And now that we have the global warming, and the oil wars, Nuke plants will be discussed breakfast lunch and dinner and that is why the government wants to be able to take our property. Yeah buddy, you know when the railroads were the issues or new airports etc., they work way ahead. First comes the laws and re-enforcing eminant domaine, and then the budget cuts, and then a tax raise and then oh my another crisis? Energy? So then we must take these trillions and build these nuke plants everywhere replacing all these old ways for the future? BS they power our electricity by water power and gas is not necessary and there is electric heaters. They said they want solar power, yeah right? Forget about that not in Seattle? Or San Francisco etc., They want Nuclear and they will get it.
2007-01-25 17:06:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
http://members.tripod.com/~Chernobyl486/index.html It is the threat of this kind that scares people beyond sanity. What if there were some kind of international catastrophe, say a bug that killed 1/3 of the world's population, as H5N1 might do. Who will take care of the reactors? Nuclear power is much more sensible that fossil fuels, but it has serious long term maintainence issues that have not been figured out. Add to that the interests of BushOilCo and their profit hungry friends, and you have a recipe for no nuclear power. Yet France gets nearly all of its energy from nuclear. So go figure.
2007-01-25 17:11:51 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess three mile Island has nothing to do with this. People do not like Nuclear energy.
1. It is very expensive.
2. Not in my backyard, the government requires for people living within a certain milage to have special(cant remember the exact name) iodide pills.
3. We have trouble storing waste (currently we are burying it into caves) On a side note, the waste is toxic for millions of years
4. We are facing a world wide shortage of Uranium. We are already disasembling old nuclear weapons for power generation, more reactors means its harder for us to keep up demand for Uranium.
What I am trying to say is Nuclear power is not perfectly safe and endangers a lot of people. Cherynobyl was a lucky disaster, imagine if it was upwind Kiev? I mean we could lose millions of people if one of those reactors blew. There is safe alternative energy that is in development and many of which is viable today. Yes fossil fuels are cheap but the polutants from them are terrible. I would reccomend upcoming projects such as wave power.
2007-01-25 16:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is still no realistic way to deal with the waste created by nuclear power plants. And Nuclear power is not the way to go. We need to be looking into renewable power sources such as wind, water and geothermal power. The are less expensive (over the long run) and less harmful to the environment. But fossil fuels are big business and the entire system is based on them. so we are stuck with them for now.
2007-01-25 16:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by cashis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Save all the good urainum for weapons. LOL dont want to waste it making energy. That would steal money from big oil.
I fear the biggest loss we will face with shrinking fossil fuels is not energy but by products - like plastics.
2007-01-25 16:52:15 · answer #6 · answered by G's Random Thoughts 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the low cost of fossil fuels means that it is not worthwhile yet to create a nuclear energy market.
2007-01-25 17:00:00 · answer #7 · answered by Curt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because big oil pulls the strings in government.
2007-01-25 16:57:45 · answer #8 · answered by Reggie B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
can we store the waste in your backyard?
class dismissed
2007-01-25 16:51:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋