What is wrong with nuclear energy?

Question

Why is the Australian government thinking this is a sustainable way forward?

Answer 1

Well yes

Nuclear power does show promise in reducing green house gases. Nuclear power is not sustainable, it is only a short term solution. Uranium will not supply our energy needs indefinitely. It is not easily renewed.

The biggest hassle is that due to certain international political activities over the last few years, our world is just not politically stable enough to expand the use of nuclear power.

Let's say Australia and other countries where to suddenly start building heaps of nuclear power stations using environmentalism as the reason. There are certain other countries, in this world that are going to stick up their hands and say "yes us too". What arguments are there for "no not you"? With our track record internationally (Iraq wheat board bribes) Are you going to trust that this stuff is not going to be sold to countries that will give it back. (with a bang). Ever heard of "pig iron bob"

Lets face it, if some countries were to get their hands on nuclear power or even just some of the waste, Global warming would no longer be the number one threat to life on this planet.

There is a cost problem as well. The largest cost for nuclear power generation is the cost of decommissioning the power station when it comes to the end of its service life. This is conveniently overlooked in most costing exercises. The cost of storing waste is underestimated. Given our political climate waste disposal needs to be quite high security. If not every other time you bend over someone will drop radioactive waste down your bum crack. I’m not 100 % opposed to nuclear power but I really think that this is the worst time in our history to greatly expand it.

The most promising alternative is clean burn coal technology there a several trials in process at the moment. This technology should provide a way to retrofit existing coal fired plant to make them emit virtually no gases at all.

Here is an example that is in underway in Queensland at present.

http://www.csenergy.com.au/research_and_development/oxy_fuel.asp

There are also promising alternatives in Geothermic (Hot dry rock)
http://www.nedo.go.jp/enetai/chinetsu/hdr/indexe.htm

Sliver solar cells
http://solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/pubs/papers/Hawaii_2006/Sliver_Cells.pdf

Dyesol solar
http://www.dyesol.com/index.php?page=HowItWorks

Answer 2

There are two possible problems with nuclear energy. The first is the possibility of an accident. Thanks to more modern technology, this has been greatly reduced, but high standards of safety need to be ensured. The second problem is with waste produced. This is a bigger problem and although strict regulations help keep the problem at bay (Mainly underground facilities and so forth), it is an important concern for the distant future. Uranium, plutonium, etc... have a half-life of several thousands of years. So any solution to growing nuclear waste needs to take the very long term problem into account. More plants means more waste. We also have a responsibility for future generations here. This is why until some permanent solution can be found to the problem of waste, I don't think they're an ideal solution. Hydro is reaching capacity (Although new technologies make the idea of using oceans more viable), and wind and solar, although clean, are yet to produce the huge amounts we are consuming. But I would definitely favor technological advances in clean sources and perhaps limited nuclear expansion in the meanwhile. (Keeping in mind the long-term problems).

Answer 3

Nuclear energy works great. It heats the water to make steam. The steam turns the turbine and spins a generator to make electricity. Simple. No co2. No green house gases.

Mining the uranium is not included in that neat little process. Nor is machining the uranium and the waste from that. Then the spent uranium is reused to make more steam. Brilliant.
When you can not use any more of the radioactive material, it gets buried. Where? In the old uranium mine? That would work if you are not mining it still. That brings to mind how dangerous the mining part of the equation is again. If you can't bury it in the old mine what do you do with it? dig your own hole and line it with concrete and hope that it is safe for the eons that it lays under ground.

The day to day working with radioactive material is not your safest job. " I hope that when my son grows up he can handle radioactive waste every day." is a phrase that is rarely heard at the dinner table.

I don't get it. Don't you guys google radioactive waste before you speak your opinions? You claim to not want the long lasting effects of the green house gases but you are fine with the even longer lasting effects of radioactive waste in your life? Talk about poison.

India is investing in large scale wind farms to generate electricity so they can desalinate sea water.

SoCal Edison has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in solar powered Sterling engine driven generators.

Two forms of clean, green energy that has no toxic waste to deal with for eons.

Answer 4

All large-scale methods of generating power have risks and dangers to the environment. The nuclear industry is not without those problems, but it has learned a lot from past mistakes. Many groups that used to be anti-nuke have decided that it isn't as dangerous as they used to believe.

Do a search on "nuclear power strange bedfellows" to read some articles about some of these new alliances.

Answer 5

Nuclear energy is better than coal.

Contrary to what most people expect, coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium.

When coal is burned the radioctive Uranium and Thorium is concentrated in the ash and is released to the environment in the ash that goes up the smoke stack and also in the hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash that are often left lying on the ground.

The Uranium in the coal ash breaks down and produces radioactive Radon gas that is released to the atmosphere.

We have far more radiocative pollution and waste released to the atmosphere every year from coal burning to produce electricity than we do from nuclear power plants.

Coal burning even produces more radioactive waste that is released to the enironment than was released by the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl combined.


However wind power does not have any of those drawbacks and is unusual for a renewable energy source in that it does not cost any more to produce electricity by wind power than it does to produce electricity by coal and nuclear power.

My first recommendation is to produce electricity by wind power.

The second recommendation that I have is to use nuclear power when wind power is not practical.

My third recommendation is that because of the pollution problems with coal, we should replace coal burning power plants with nuclear power plants if we cannot replace the generating capacity with wind power.

The bottom line is that nuclear power is much safer and causes much less radioactive pollution than burning coal.

If the choice is between coal power and nuclear power we should go with nuclear power.

Answer 6

Absolutely nothing is wrong with nuclear energy!! It only becomes bad if it is used as an adjective to describe bomb. One of America's big sources of energy, coal, kills thousands of people per year and pollutes the earth horribly. Chernobyl was a horrible thing, but safety measures have increased ten fold since then. A very slim chance exists for something to go wrong. There is even less of a chance for after something goes wrong for it effect any one. Everyone looks at the long island incident as why we should not have it. Guess how many people died from it...NONE!

Nuclear power is cheaper, safer, more efficient, and better for our envrionment then our other options (solar too expensive, wind and water inefficient). So, until we develop those sources (decades away) we need to use Nuclear power.

70% of France uses Nuclear power and few European countries have the negative mentality towards nuclear energy America has. If Australia is looking at Nuclear energy then good for them!!!

Answer 7

Only the radioactive material left when the plutonium can not produce power. Where do you store something that can kill people which have a half life of hundreds years. I know I have ask a question but that is the answer. Another thing almost nowhere in the world can you build without being near earthquakes areas.

Answer 8

Well it's the waste that's wrong, nuclear waste takes millions of years to be safe, soo many things can happen in a millions years you can imagen all the posibilities of dessasters to come.
In the event of a nuclear desaster, all the energy produced since the first day of the atomic age will mean nothing.
A global nuclear desaster can bring the human rave and posibly all other life forms to extinction.
Well at least you can proudly say roaches will survive if you can see further up the road.
If you ask a roach that question, he'll probably say thairs nothing wrong with nuclear energy nor the waste created by it, hmmmm... it'll be like living in "Joes' Apartment" every where.
The energy of the sun, and energy in lighting bolts is enough to fuel our needs without the danger that nuclear reactors pose.
Was Chernoble a warning sign of whats to come?

Answer 9

Nuclear power might be part of the solution to our energy issues, but what we do with nuclear waste is one factor that needs thorough examination. Cancer related to nuclear waste, especially in Los Alamos, New Mexico, is one major concern (see the second sited webpage below. Exactly where this waste is to be dumped and who says are extremely sensitive issues. I don't know about you, but I for one do not want the waste dumped in my backyard, or in a canyon near my house, or...well, you get the idea. For those who flippantly say, "Yeah, any moran can see that nuclear will solve all of our problems," I'd like to ask you, can they dump this stuff near your town? Let's think before we jump to rash solutions.

Answer 10

It has a bad reputation because of its association with nuclear weapons, and because the public fears radioactive waste more than non-radioactive toxic waste, and because of the fear of future accidents like Chernobyl.

But a nuclear power plant can produce a lot of energy without releasing any CO2.