Is nuclear energy a viable solution for our energy needs?

Answer 1

Yes I think it is.

I think that it is the only clean way we can produce the amount of energy which we need.

The contamination of nuclear plants are very localized. and it is non carbon producing.

If we start now, we could have plants up in about ten years,

The problem is that people are so afraid of them, But you would have to trust the ones they would build now would be absolutely state of the art and the safest ever.

Many other countries in Europe get most of their energy from nuclear,it really is the greenest way to go right now for the amount we need.

This along with implementing solar and wind power is a good clean energy solution for our country.

Answer 2

Just some clarifications. The equivalent area for a plant to supply all US electrical energy needs is about a square 100 miles on a side, that is 10,000 square miles. I seem to recall 120 miles on a side, but suppose efficiencies have gone up. In practice, there wouldn't be a single plant that large, of course, there would be many smaller plants. Silicon is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust - there isn't an issue of finding enough of it. The cost would be enormous, but not hundreds of trillions of dollars. Maybe 5-10 trillion, the size of the national debt. Still large. Note that importing oil weakens our currency, indirectly contributing to the national debt. I believe nuclear (fission) has its place, by the way, along with the other technologies listed above. Fusion and antimatter are still far from commercialization. You are right about hydrogen in terms of energy efficiency, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used as an energy storage medium. A rechargeable battery always returns less than was put into it, yet such batteries are quite useful. Oil itself has an efficiency of less than 1, considering the solar energy first put into growing the prehistoric plants that went into it. Presumably, if we use hydrogen, it would be as a portable fuel, and the energy to make that hydrogen could come from renewable sources.

Answer 3

Its probably the safest potential energy source, unless its in the hands of a communist government (the only nuclear plant meltdown ever was under the watch of the Soviet Union).

If Environmentalists actually cared about the environment, they'd be recommending nuclear energy as the "alternative fuel" to get rid of fossil fuels. Of course, Environmentalists hate nuclear energy even more than carbon. They want us to return to the Dark Ages and give up the Industrial Revolution, which we should not do.

Answer 4

CONTROLLED nuclear energy is a viable solution to our energy needs. If we let it get out of hand, though, not only will it start to mess with the environment, it can start reacting.

Watch Spider Man 2. That there shows what could happen if it's not controlled properly.

Answer 5

I believe it is because of the rolling blackouts in california a while back. They were caused by inadaquate power to fuel the demands placed on the power grid by the population and as such the only way to solve the energy crisis that the polititions talk about is to build enough power plants to make equal or greater amounts of power than what is consumed by those of us on the power grid. Nuclear power is the only solution that can provide the amount of power needed to meet or exceed our needs for electrical power society wide.

I refuse to apoligize for how I feel because I do not believe myself to be wrong. If I am wrong present evidence that proves me wrong and I will change.

Answer 6

What about the waste from it, I remember not long ago that was a big issue with the amount we have now. I think they are now disposing of some of it on Indian reservations, and if we have a lot more what then??? Why not more wind, solar, and water power, rivers can generate a lot of electricity. We have a farm near us that somehow harnesses methane gas and powers the farm and the homes on it then sells power to the power company. Seems like there might be even safer ways??????

Answer 7

Yes, it is currently the only source that can replace the efficency and mass productoin of power that oil has. Also It is much cleaner than oil. We can kick the oil habit by just using a combo of nuclear, clean coal, wind and hydro power to power our homes and industries. We could make it where gas is really only needed to power cars and transport vehicles. Also if we wanted we could use gas to only power high capacity transport vehicles like planes and use other things to power our cars and buses like nat gas and Ethanol. The technology is there but no one wants to use it.

Answer 8

Nuclear energy would be awsome for the united states. Imagine how much cleaner the environement would be. It is cheap, easy and efficient. It would take us off dependence on oil and gas.

Answer 9

Yes great but you forgot one thing. What about the rest of the world? How are you going to convince countries that are just beginning to grow economically that they must ditch their dependency on oil to match the United States who incidentally haven't even started to change themselves? It is all hypothetical anyway because come on people do you really see it happening? I don't but I am a realist.

Answer 10

Yes