Should we be messing with nuclear energy before we have a viable solution for getting rid of the waste?

Question

Not a little or some of the waste, all of the waste.

Answer 1

The technology is there. You would be surprised if you let go of the long held beliefs that alarmists have put into the mind.

1. The nuclear waste can be reprocessed and use around 95% of it, and the 5% can be reprocessed again with the same results. When you get right down to it, if we used it efficiently, there would be approximately one half cup of true waste generated by the average consumption during a lifetime.

2. By the way, this true waste is absolutely as toxic as they say, but it has many uses. It can be found in every smoke detector in America today. It is what makes them work. It has other uses as well, but I am drawing a blank as to the other few I read about.

3. We actually BUY this extremely toxic material to use because we do not reprocess and reprocess until we have it.

4. Nuclear power has taken many fewer lives than any other form of energy (even when comparrisons use the limited amount of nuclear we have ever used compared to other forms)

5. Stop believing the alarmists and look deeper into nuclear science. You will find that there is not a safer, cleaner, more efficient form of renewable energy on the planet. (And you will find that 99.9% of the crap that you have been told about nuclear by the alarmists is pure BS)

Answer 2

Just because the wastes of nuclear energy are more talked about does not mean that they are worse than the wastes associated with other forms of energy generation.

Solar is pretty neat but how do you think solar panels are made? They are made out of high grade silicon which comes from sand and is produced in arc furnaces that use...lots and lots electricity to melt the sand. So not so great.

How about wind energy - this is great, but there are simply limited places to put wind turbines that are effective...you need to have wind of about 18 mph to generate a decent amount of electricity. Wind farms use hundreds of turbines that results in lots of maintenance. Typically where its nice and windy there are no power lines so its hard to get power to market.

Hydro power...well that has impacts too...huge amounts of water pass through turbines to create electricity. Well you need to build those facilities and that damages the environment and poses problems for wildlife.

Coal - well thats pretty bad right? Well can be...most of the nation's coal plants are old and inefficient...if we could re-invest in them we could make them much more efficient and take care of the excess CO2 production through improved efficiency..

Nukes - terrible right? Not really the amount of waste is not that great and we have lots of room to store the stuff so thats not a problem and it is not harmful forever. At least nuclear plant waste is 100% contained and regulated.

The bottom line is that every form of energy production is in some way bad...However looking at what is causing the biggest problem today is CO2 in the atmosphere. Widely considered the main cause of global warming. Well nuclear energy does not produce any CO2...it is also the only real choice ie the only method that can produce enough energy to power our world...sure solar and wind and hydro can contribute but you could never build enough of them to power the country...we need to reduce CO2 production now and that should be done with more efficient coal plants, nuclear , wind, hydro and solar where appropriate.

Answer 3

1. We are not "messing" with nuclear energy.

2. Politicians, not the scientists, are the problem with nuclear energy. There are locations we could place spent fuel, but politicians are always afraid of the "not in my backyard" backlash.

3. Unless Americans decide to get rid of air conditioning, computers, televisions, and all the other luxuries that we enjoy, we are going to have a great need for electricity.

Answer 4

We have had a viable solution technically ready to receive all nuclear wastes since the mid 90s, its at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Its been tied up in litigation by the local NIMBY crowd as well as political reluctance in Washington. I'm really surprised nobody else has mentioned it.

Answer 5

Good question. What is the alternative?

All other forms of energy will take up vastly more tracts of land, and generate much larger volumes of waste; they are not as concentrated.

In the long term solar (a nuclear reaction) is a preferred source, but in the short to mid term unless people take conservation seriously, or you live near a canyon where you can build a dam and flood thousands of acres of virgin forest, the choices are very limited.

Answer 6

I honestly don't think we should be. The people before us didn't need the Nuclear Power, so why do we? Scientists think they're using these "Discoveries" to make living and working "easier" but actually, they're making it harder for us! We can't go on living on Nuclear Energy!!!

We don't really need Nuclear Weapons!! The Iraqis and the people we're at war with really don't want to continuously fight with us! I believe they are forced by the Al Quadias and whoever. And that's not a lot compared to the population of America!

I do believe we need to use Nuclear Energy to solve diseases and sicknesses in a way though.

My overall belief is that we need to stop using Nuclear Energy but we can't just stop "Cold Turkey", we have to give it some years because that's the only thing we can do right now.

Answer 7

Reprocessing the nuclear waste is not eliminating the danger. Would you carry it to the dump in your truck? For that matter can we rely on you to mine the uranium? To mill it into usable rods for the reactors? That stuff is not safe and we have NO IDEA that burying it in Nevada or NM will actually last the 10,000 years it is forecast to be safe. And if you think we are having an energy shortage now wait until we find out how little uranium there is.

Answer 8

It's a juggling act of unpalatable alternatives. We're addicted to electricity.

Nukes are one of the methods we can keep using electricity without the curses of hydrocarbon fuels. But it's risky in a lot of ways, and the by-products don't go away easily and safely.

Biting the bullet and seeing what can be eeked out of solar energy and wind energy would certainly be a favorable alternative in many ways, but not without other costs.

A few years ago a major city in the southwest was outgrowing anticipated available water supplies. They were mining their groundwater [still are] and building homes financed over a time period beyond when there'd be available water to serve them.

A friend and I were discussing this and what it means. He observed, "Those people are just going to have to find something else to drink."

Same applies to electricity addiction, seems to me.

Answer 9

I don't believe we should. We can't get rid of the wase which would be a major problem down the road. And who wants to live down wind from a nuclear plant? Look at Chernobyl. I think solar and wind power should be our main focus on energy for the future. Solar energy has come a long way and the Sun isn't going to burn out for another billion years or more.

Answer 10

We know how to safely bury the waste. We do it for military nuclear wastes outside Carlsbad, NM.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

It's just a political problem to designate a site.

Many environmentalists now support nuclear power, because the risks are much less than the risks of global warming. Thanks to 3DM for this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html