do you think nuclear power should b used in producing electricity?!?

Question

after knowing the importance of need for new ways of electricity generation n harmful affects of nuclear power use in it........should it b emphasized?!

Answer 1

People are stuck in the past with respect to nuclear power generation. Japan has been using 3rd generation nuclear power plants since 1996. These new plants are more efficient, run longer, and generate less waste than the plants of the past. The anti-nuclear crowd is so hysterical that any talk of nuclear power is drowned out by their dogma. Often these are the same global warming radicals, oil company hating, and corporate bashing individuals that offer no realistic alternatives to power generation.

Answer 2

Given the alternatives and considering the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to terrorist attack and the waste disposal problems, the answer must be "NO".

What happened to the idea of a hydrogen based energy system. We fill the deserts with solar cells and electrolyse water into H2 and O2. The H2 can be pumped via pipeline to anywhere and can provide the basic fuel for electric power and transportation. This whole process produces no Co2. The costs are said rule this out meanwhile but whoever knows the true and final cost of nuclear power - let him speak!

Bramble

Answer 3

Yes. There are more ways to harness nuclear energy, other than splitting uranium and plutonium isotopes, which can be fatal. The most efficient way to do this is through a process known as nuclear fusion. Fusion is the binding of two or more atomic nuclei into a new atom, releasing energy in many forms. Hydrogen fusion takes place in most stars, and produces much more energy than nuclear fission could ever produce. What happens is, two isotopes of hydrogen, most commonly deuterium and tritium, are forced together by a star's gravity. They usually form helium or some other light gas and release energy. Now, with today's technology, it is nearly impossible to produce the energy required to mass fuse hydrogen. However, in the future, maybe scientists will find some way to tap in to this limitless energy supply.

Answer 4

It should not be so.
1st:Machinery to run this project is too expensive which developing and under developing countries cannot afford.
2nd: Countries like America will start exploiting these countries which have Uranium and other unstable elements leading to instability of that country( Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Somalia already been destroyed by America)
3rd: Not all countries have radioactive elements so, the countries that have them will take undue advantage of countries that don't have them.
4th:Lastly, the end products are harmful and cannot be disposed ordinarily. For example, Ukraine had an explosion in the nuclear reactor and all the next generation there was born with abnormal features( Genetic Mutation)

Answer 5

Nuclear power is one option. At least it doesn't produce C-O2.

However, we have to be concerned about taking care of long-term nuclear wastes. Some of them have to be kept away from the possibility of contamination for thousands of years - indeed, some of them for longer than recorded history.

Are we sure enough of the geology of proposed storage sites (such as Yucca Mountain) to be clear that we can "bury and forget"? Or are we going to have to devise other mechanisms (even cultural innovations of some sort) to make sure that people are continually aware of these dangers into the indefinite future?

Answer 6

We are going to have to use it eventually, might as well start now. France generates 90% of it's power requirements via Nuclear with no problems.

Answer 7

I think it should be. The main concern is finding a way to get rid of or recycle nuclear waste. In the end, I think reducing our dependence on foreign oil and decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions both outweigh this possible negative.

Answer 8

Where the wind energy and energy from the waterfall are not available, we must find other sources of energy to produce electrical energy. If not it is always advisable to go for nuclear energy. But the most easily and abundantly available enrgy is the solar energy.Always we can not depend upon the petroleum products.

Answer 9

Of course it should be one of our options. The best way to reduce power use in the long run is to build communities that are pedestrian friendly and have a good mix of residential and commercial uses.

Answer 10

they don't pollute the air which reduces the quantity of greenhouse gases launched and could shrink the greenhouse effect. They do produce risky waste it incredibly is tougher to get rid of than different waste because of the fact it is radioactive yet that's not an benefit, nevertheless exciting although.