Why nuclear energy should not be used?

Answer 1

Nuclear energy is not 'clean' or environmentally sound, whatever its apologists say. Nuclear's only virtue is that its process of generation emits less greenhouse gases than oil or coal power stations. It is:
INEFFICIENT - the UK Government couldn't sell shares in it when it was privatised;
HIDEOUSLY EXPENSIVE - the most expensive way of generating power... just remember to factor in all the billions in R&D, disposal & decommissioning, and 100,000 years of storage, apologists, and
HIGHLY DANGEROUS - vulnerable to terrorist attacks, deadly for thousands of years, and one mistake could wipe out a whole nation. The USSR was big enough absorb the worst effects. Imagine Chernobyl had happened in Scotland.

Throw in the fact that extracting (either) uranium or plutonium in sufficient quantities is extremely difficult, environmentally damaging and in very limited supply and you might wonder why all these politicians think its worth the bother, especially as 3 years ago Government commissioned reports in the US and UK said (essentially) the game wasn't worth the candle.

The answer is, of course, that it is all about power - the political rather than the electrical sort. All countries with substantial nuclear power generation also make nuclear bombs and always have, right back to the 1950s. The nucelar power industry has an intimate relationship with the military, and is an essential element to bomb-making capacity. The current debate is simply a smokescreen for nuclear bomb renewal, if you'll pardon the pun. If nuclear power is so innocent, why such hue and cry over Iran simply wanting to make nuclear generators?

FACT: 60-70% of electricity generated is lost in transmission through the grid. How inefficient is that? Wouldn't it make more sense - economically, environmentally and socially - to enable communities to generate power locally through a mix of renewables? Remember, localised projects would only have to generate around 40% of the wattage currently generated to maintain the present (excessive) rates of consumption. And if communities took responsibility for its own power generation think how, well, empowering that would be. Generating power in both senses, along with some common interest (and therefore common bond) within presently, ahem, atomised communities. Give people responsibility and they will act responsibily, especially if the consequences are your lights and heating going off.

Instead, we fear. We can't handle this. Power generation means big coal or oil fired stations. Or scary nuclear fission. Best leave it to governments, multi-national companies, oil producers.

They know best.

Answer 2

The reasons not to use it: Most nuclear plants produce a waste which remains highly toxic for tens of thousands of years, and the reactors create material which can be used to make nuclear weapons.
. The reasons it SHOULD be used: The amount of toxic waste produced by reactors is much, much smaller than that produced by coal fired plants, and it is contained, whereas much of the coal plant waste is released into the atmosphere. Disposal of the waste is a political problem, not a scientific or engineering problem. The material can be reliably kept away from people, animals and water supplies; it's really not that difficult. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases. A nuclear power plant is not slowed down by weather conditions, as many alternative energy source (wind and solar) are. The radioactive waste from older style nuclear plants can be recycled to produce fuel for newer designs of nuclear plants so that the amount of waste to be disposed of is tremendously reduced. The only seriously injurious event at any nuclear power plant was the one at Chernobyl. Chernobyl did not have a containment building as the plant designs used elsewhere in the world do. At Three Mile Island, the worst circumstance ever faced by the U.S. nuclear power industry, the vast majority of the damage was caused by reporters trampling over the environment. The event caused damage internal to the plant, but that damage was never a threat to the public or the environment; and that was with the operators doing everything wrong that they possibly could.

Answer 3

I can think of more reasons why nuclear energy should be used! However, the cons against nuclear energy are:

Relatively higher cost of construction
Risk of an accident with resultant release of radiation into atmosphere like in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
Cost and problems of decommissioning the old nuclear plant
Problems of disposal of spent fuel

All these problems are being addressed with varying degrees of success by the scientists and technologists working in the field.

Look at the advantages too:

The nuclear energy is one of the cleanest sources of electricity - No carbon emissions, no acid rains, no ash

Nuclear reactors have been operated quite safely all over the world and the number of major accidents are quite few.

Radiation levels have been well controlled and there has been no adverse impact on the flora and fauna near most of the nuclear power plants.

Fossil fuels are expected to be depleted in another few decades and nuclear energy is the only available major source of energy to meet the growing needs of the world.

If one takes into account the environmental impact costs, the cost of nuclear energy is comparable or even less than the conventional sources such as hydel and fossil fuel based power stations.

Answer 4

Theoretically, nuclear energy can be a clean energy. However, there is still evidence that radioactive materials escape in the waste water and the steam that you see pouring out of the giant cooling towers. I read and article about that a few years ago. It may be possible to fix it, but for now, we just can't be sure.

There is also the problem of something going wrong and causing an accident. If that happens, there can be catastrophic results, i.e. Chernobyl, 3-mile-Island, etc...

Additional note -- It looks to me like our country is turning to coal energy for the near future. There is actually a viable way to contain almost all of the nasty chemicals AND the carbon dioxide emissions from these plants. There is actually a coal power plant in Florida that practices some of these measures and could easily be equipped to contain all the emissions. But we have to make it happen. There was an article about this in Discover magazine last year. It should be noted, however, that this does not remove the problem of how to mine the coal without destroying large chunks of beautiful land around it with strip mining and waste (and sometimes, human lives).

Answer 5

Fusion shouldn't be used because it is economically a disaster.

Fission shouldn't be used because a large portion of the fission fragments are highly radioactive and are easily absorbed into the body (like I125/131; Sr/Y90; Cs/Ba137). When you "burn" fissile fuel, these nasty fission fragments are produced in Gigacurie quantities...that is, there is enough nasty fission by products produced in just 1 commercial reactor in a day to kill every single human on earth. Worse yet, we have no real plan as far as what to do with spent fuel.

The Department of Energy themselves admit that the Yucca Mountain facility (where US high level spent waste is tentatively slated to be sent) cannot guarantee safe containment for the 100's of thousands of years needed for the transuranic component of spent waste to safely decay away. Reactor fuel reprocessing would help alleviate this problem, but would not entirely solve it because current water moderated reactors cannot be made to burn off the transuranic compoents of MOx fuel.

Bascially, the only way nuclear energy could be made to not produce the dangerously long-lived transuranic components in spent fuel would be if everyone moved to fast breeder reactors. The trouble with these reactors, however, is their reduced safety margin, and the realitvely high operating cost.

As it is, the US already has 70,000+ tons of spent fuel (an aircraft carrier is 90,000 tons, just for comparison) and it is piling up fast. We are really making a stupid choice to continue our use of fission as an energy source.

Answer 6

Nuclear energy are fission energy and fusion energy..Problems of obtain fission energy people here talk a lot.But don't forget there are great hope of fusion energy.This is environmental safe.Fusion product no toxi side product only energy(heat).Up to now fusion is not economical;need put more energy then out put energy,but many advance country are putting a lot of money for experiment to improve the tech.and got big progress.In very near future(in 2032 Chinese said)positive energy will come out from fusion reaction.Beside very expensive hot fusion,there are other way of fusion;cold fusion,it is not expensive I personal believe that will come to reallty One shipment of helium 3 from noom will enough feul for whole year for United stat.and fossil feul and radiation problem will be histry.Don't give up of nuclear energy.

Answer 7

It has the potential to produce environmental contamination if something goes wrong with the process (such as a nuclear meltdown). Chernobyl is a prime example of the catastrophic effects of a nuclear disaster.
Also, they are potential terrorist targets.

Answer 8

For me it SHOULD BE used...

It is a matter the lack of proper procedure and discipline that makes it so dangerous.

But if we were to overcome those said hurdles, it will lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and the middle east

Answer 9

Ask the folks in Chernobyl.

Answer 10

The waste is much more critical and the news media will blow it up to insanity.