Will we be able to stop nuclear power?

Question

Before it becomes the "solution" to global climate change, and introduces even greater threats to our environment, instead of truly clean energy? How can other countries be pursuaded?

Answer 1

I like to ask people how much it costs to produce nuclear power. If they tell me ANY number, they are wrong!

The reason for this is simple - we have never, ever permanently disposed of even one (1) ounce of nuclear waste. Visit Hanford, Washington sometime. They are STILL trying to store nuclear waste that was produced from the VERY FIRST experimentation with nuclear materials in the Manhattan Project.

And since we are STILL paying to try and store byproducts of nuclear experiments performed more than half a century ago, nobody could possibly say what the cost of nuclear power is. It is still being tabulated! Almost all estimates you see of the cost of nuclear power completely ignore the costs of health problems caused to workers and surrounding communities, miners, and what is likely to be THOUSANDS of years of storage. Try and rent even a closet for a thousand years at your local storage facility and see if you can afford the bill!

And that completely discounting the thousands of reports verifying that ANY exposure to increased radiation is dangerous. There are so many cases of cancer and other diseases that have been linked to the nuclear industry that it is completely mind-boggling.

Even the staunchest proponent of nuclear power has to admit that it puts a lot of steam and water vapor into the atmosphere. Guess what? The three major greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, and WATER VAPOR. Of the three, water vapor may even be the worst!

So let's see... it has ludicrous costs, is linked to diseases in just about every community where it is present, and even puts out greenhouse gases. Why would anyone even consider it?

Answer 2

Probably not. There has been far too much research and development into that power source to just drop it. Hopefully, though, we'll be able to find a way to de-radiate the waste products of this technology. It IS possible, as was demonstrated by the UFO that put a 'red beam' into Cherynoble that stopped the nuclear reaction and reduced it to a mere steam explosion. Unfortunately, there was still a lot of residual radiation on the site. But who knows what we can come up with in the future?

Meanwhile, look into zero point/aetheric energy. Fascinating!

Answer 3

Why would you want to stop nuclear power? As an energy source it creates less pollution and more energy than coal, oil and natural gas combined. The waste it does produce is by far the most toxic, but is still produced in smaller quanities than other sources of energy. The question we must answer is how do we reconstitute that waste into fuel. In addition, we must find better ways to transport and dispose of nuclear waste that can not be used. While nuclear energy comes with significant risk, it is essential that we focus not on eliminating a power source but minimizing those risk. The best way to do that is to keep nuclear energy under the strictiest of regulatory controls and continual research and development to minimize those risks.

Just think of how much better the environment would be if we had done the same for the other sources of energy.

Answer 4

Nuclear is a great alternatiive to fossil fuel burning. It not only makes a heck of a lot more power for every bit of uranium mined then coal or oil, but there are very limited emissions. Maybe some steam. It is getting a lot easier to take care of radioactive waste and we are even progressing towards reducing how much waste is left over. It is become even more of a solution than just an alternative.
For these reasons, "stopping" nuclear power will be indeed difficult. But is that really so bad? Once solar energy technology gets better, there will be more of shift toward that since it is a lot more independent. Anyone can generate their own power with solar.

Answer 5

i dont see the earth in the near future completely free from nuclear energy threats today on a comedy channel there was an interview based on nuclear power it was not comedic but really serious. even more if you know about the nuclear clock it is about the approximate possibility of a nuclear war. during the cold war it was at 5 min to mid night (DOOMSDAY) now scientist believe it is at quarter to mid night. Basically nuclear energy is a curse or mole that was growing and was pushed down but of course the mole would not go like that and so would nuclear power. may be in the near future there would be the first ever all nuclear war world war III. i hope i were alive so i can actually see a real live nuclear bomb going of dieing after seeing that would be peaceful for me.

Answer 6

Nuclear power is here to stay. Whether it is in the form of a nuclear bomb or a nuclear generator. Too many countries have the bomb currently, and none are going to give up their bombs up voluntarily, as nobody is going to believe that all the others have complied with the deal, so we are stuck with the bombs.
As far as nuclear generators, they are not the safest of all forms of power, but they no longer pose the threat that was a part of Three Mile Island. Safeguards have been inacted since those days. And as it is we are running out of natural forms of power and we do in fact need the power that is generated from nuclear generators. That power is needed to run all the different kinds of machinery that we now possess.

Answer 7

at the instant, we are in a position to basically generate nuclear power from nuclear fusion, and the products are radioactive with very long a million/2-lives, till we own an somewhat huge web site with greater thick and risk-free protecting for the nuclear waste, nuclear power isn't risk-free in any respect. it particularly is sparkling, yet thinking the nuclear waste? the place could you get the landfill? deliver it to someplace and while the waste leaks away for the duration of an twist of destiny, what can take place to the aquatic lives and our water materials, all of us be attentive to. i don't be attentive to the place some human beings heard approximately nuclear power technology being risk-free and all, yet Malaysia does not own the understanding to augment uranium yet - we are basically making factors of the equipment for an extra united states of america; dumb sufficient? as much as now i do no longer think of Malaysia will circulate greater exploring nuclear power technology in the close to destiny, do no longer hardship.

Answer 8

We won't be able to change the system. We as a society only look at the present, what is cheapest and easiest. When they run out of sites to store the nuclear waste, and people start dying who live near one, well, maybe the government will wake up, but I doubt it.

Answer 9

Silly puppy, nuclear is clean energy. In the decades since we last built a nuclear power plant, other countries have marched forward, France and Japan notably, building them by the dozens. Not one person has died or been endangered by the operation of any of these plants.

It is still true that more people have died in the front seat of Ted Kennedy's car than have EVER died as a result of nuclear power generation in the US.

The only place where there has ever been a problem with nuclear power generation is in Russia at Chernobyl. Frankly, the quality of construction cannot be reasonably or fairly compared.

Without nuclear power we are left with burning large amounts of coal to produce electricity. Hydroelectric generation just is not sufficient to meet our growing needs.

I am sure that you would like for everyone to have solar panel arrays sufficient to meed all of their needs. So would I but creating those panels creates large amounts of pollution. So are they Truly Clean? And while improvements continue to be made the cost is staggering to have enough solar panels to provide ALL of your needs. For example:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/

http://www.solargysystems.com/scripts/default.asp