Is nuclear power just too risky? Is there a better bet?

Answer 1

There are safe methods of generating nuclear power but not all nuclear plants use them because of the increased cost.

I think when you weigh the risk against the gain it does seem a bit too risky and costly to build a lot of nuclear plants.

It has been estimated that we could generate enough electricity from wind, solar and geothermal to supply all of North America. The technology for it already exists but there is a lot of opposition.

edit: I expect to see thumbs down from the morons.

Answer 2

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.

This Little accident stop ALL nuclear power plants being build the USA. Because ALL new power plants were natural gas this make the price of natural gas sky rocket and made it hard for poor to heat their homes. It also has just add to the the greenhouse gasses by a huge amount. Electric power plants are THE BIGGEST polluter of greenhouse gasses.

If we did not stop the new nukes we would have dropped the USA greenhouse gasses by a large amount.


WE NEED THE NUCLER POWER!!!!!!

Answer 3

Everyone will always try to tell you it safe, but like most things, there are always greedy people taking short cuts, careless workers, and misunderstandings that can lead to a situation. I would certainly never want to see nuclear in Australia. It used to be a good solution but not any more. There are simply too many problems with it. Many of my collegues used to work in the nuclear industry and they completely bag it out. It uses a lot of water - a scarcer resource by the day - causes problems with waste, becomes a target for terrorism, and is very very expensive to decommision - plus at least 10 years to build a nuclear power station. You also need the same amount of energy as the largest unit in spinning reserve incase one of the generators trips out. Therefore you need about 500MW of spare idling generation incase of a trip. So it is only suitable for large systems. (i.e. the east coast) - WA will never have nuclear thank god.

There is a better bet - but it takes a bit of clever thinking to work around the problems. I think geothermal is the way to go for our base load power supply (thats load that is always there). Wind, solar and biomass are great peaking generation, and of course we have a plentiful gas source in Australia, but that is running out and carbon trading will make it an expensive option in the future.

Just remember "The fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones" Albert Einstein....

Answer 4

No. It's way less risky than global warming.

We can build safe plants that are safe from terrorists. We're good at stuff like that. We can bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem saying where we'll do it.

We can't fix global warming without nuclear. Solar, wind, etc., have a role, but nuclear is needed for the heavy lifting, like making hydrogen for hundreds of millions of cars.

Answer 5

No, it's probable an all-round better bet that coal, but too many people associate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. Also, the consequences of bad operations practices and errors can be far more costly than coal or oil. That said, I have always believed that it is far better than what we're using now--at least til we can find something(s) better overall.

Answer 6

Nuclear power is not risky. Inadequately trained operators or improperly designed reactors are risky.

A well designed reactor is pretty well idiot-proof. but the improperly trained operators at Three Mile Island proved that no matter how idiot-proof you make something... someone will breed a "better idiot."

Answer 7

i don't know much as far as details, but i know that most of france's energy is from nuclear power and they haven't had any accidents. it's possible to make it work like they have but i don't know what they do differently to make it safer.

Answer 8

when one considers the effects of Chernobil...yes i would have to say that it is too risky.....i feel strongly that a better option is Wind Turbines....once built and put into operation they soon superseed the cost of construction and instulation ......and hey...we all know that there is lots of wind availible.....and the overhead costs after implementation.....very minimal compaired to Nuclear.....Go Wind energy!

Answer 9

There is NO better bet.