State Thw Following :
1 : Answer
2 : Reason
3 : Any Other Relevant Information
2007-03-20 23:34:37 · 10 answers · asked by Unazaki 4 in Environment
This is a survey.
2007-03-20 23:34:53 · update #1
It should replace a major part. It can't possibly replace it all. And it will take many years.
We need to reduce global warming. Solar, wind, and biofuels are also important, but only nuclear can replace a lot of power plants (not all) in the next 20 years or so.
Transportation will be the hardest place to replace fossil fuels. We'll need electric or hydrogen powered cars/trucks, and it will take a long time to design them, build them, and build the infrastructure to support them.
2007-03-21 03:23:46 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear plants are expensive to build, operate and dispose of the wastes. This is the main reason only 1? has been built in the US since the 70's. Safety isn't the real issue, but one could imagine the liability costs if Chenyobal had happened in the US. How much would it cost in civil lawsuits for 6000+ lives and the abandanment of a city which use to house 50,000. Few energy companies want to take the risk of a billion dollar lawsuit. Replace no, but they will be needed in the future to sustain the rising population and the increasing price of fossil fuels. Face it, solar and wind can't produce 1/100th of today's energy needs.
2007-03-20 23:54:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear power should be one of the ways we mitigate our reliance on fossil fuel.
We need to start reducing the overall dependence on fossil fuel now. Nuclear technology is one technology we already have and can start building power plants that can significantly reduce the power needs from fossil fuel plants. However nuclear technology is only a middle step in the process. It can buy us time to move away from fossil fuels and toward truly clean energy that is renewable. We will pay a price for heavy reliance on nuclear techonolgy but we can't keep waiting until some break though techonology is discovered and expect to then switch from fossil fuels to it. If we are not careful we will begin to run out of fossil fuels and not have built the infastructer of other power plants to replace the fossil fuels. If that happens the lights will begin to go out and terrible wars will be fought over the precious remeants of fossil fuels with death tolls not seen since WW II.
2007-03-20 23:43:08 · answer #3 · answered by DTS 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, i don't think so. this is because of the dangers posed by using nuclear power one of which is affecting the lives and health of people if it is not controlled well. as we know, there is not an absolute certainty about the safety of the usage of nuclear power. i believe it is best that we just venture and explore on the use of those such as biomass, solar, or wind energy to produce power. they are so much better because they're renewable and relatively "safer" to use.
2007-03-20 23:54:43 · answer #4 · answered by ieatreese88 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because the danger involved in the generation of nuclear power is greater than the benefits.All nuclears leaks and accidents are disasterous in propotion.
2007-03-20 23:40:11 · answer #5 · answered by WC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO there are places where energy is needed that is not practical for cars ,plains . Nuclear would be good for electrical power production.
2007-03-21 03:03:32 · answer #6 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only a small part . The rest should be by alternatives like solar wind natural gas. ho2
2007-03-20 23:47:58 · answer #7 · answered by chris s 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that we should use both. If one fails, we could lean on the other one until the government finds a solution to that problem. both can harm the enivorment, but nothing serious
2007-03-27 14:22:33 · answer #8 · answered by Hopeless 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. Nuclear power is obviously dangerous.
2007-03-20 23:53:01 · answer #9 · answered by h-sum 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-03-20 23:50:05 · answer #10 · answered by booge 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋