Who else feels that nuclear power is clean but its benefits do not add up to the dangers?

Answer 1

Electricity generated by wind power with a cost of 4 cents per kilowatt hour is economically competitive with nuclear power and coal fired power plants.

We have sufficient sources of wind to provide all of the electricity needs of the United States. With enough wind turbines tied into the electric grid when there is not sufficient wind in one area, it is probable that there is sufficient wind in another area.

You may be interested to know that the real danger that we face is from coal fired power plants. They are far more dangerous than nuclear power plants.

Coal fired power plants produce far more radiocative waste than nuclear power plants.

Coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium. The Uranium and Thorium is concentrated in the ash and also escapes up the smokestack with the fly ash.

Coal fired power plants produce far more radiocative pollution than nuclear power plants.

Answer 2

There is no choice but to build more nuclear power plants if reduction of CO2 emissions is the goal.

There is a rough equivalance between the amount of land necessary to build a wind or solar farm and the size of the community which that farm must power, and that much land is not available to the public utilities. And since you cannot depend on having wind available after sunset, you have to build excess generation capacity on a solar / wind farm to either charge an enourmous quantity of toxic chemical batteries for nighttime use, or alternatively split H2O into hydrogen and oxygen gases to feed fuel cells. And it gets even worse with the niche energy sources such as tidal and geothermal power......not everybody lives near an ocean or an underground steam source.

The main restriction in situating nuclear plants is the availability of reactor cooling water plus an absense of significant geologic faults, and those criteria are not as hard to meet as are the political criteria. And the weekends "accident" in Japan was no more than storage drums tipping over, which surely a manageable problem.

Answer 3

Bob is correct. We know there are risks to nuclear power, but there really isn't an option. The world simply uses too much power today to be supplied by all the usual alternatives. What most people forget is that we are trying to balance 2 things ... global warming against quality of human life. Without massive quantities of energy, many things will disappear; technology, industry, mechanized agriculture, heating & air conditioning.

Like everyone else, I wish we could solve the world's energy demands with a perfectly eco-friendly and plentiful energy solution. But, wishing it doesn't make it happen.

Does this mean we should abandon our efforts to use wind, solar, etc? Absolutely not. But, they can never provide the total amount of energy that fossil fuels or nuclear can provide.

Answer 4

I disagree about the dangers. How many nuclear power plants have had accidents..I lived close to the Lake Anna power plant in Virginia for 25 years and there was never a problem. We paid less for electricity than other areas..But of course there will be someone screaming that it isn't safe..I prefer it over coal or oil

Answer 5

I don't even agree with the "clean" label. Nuclear power requires the mining of uranium or other radioactive material, which makes a wasteland out of the mine site due to the radioactive talings. It then has to be transported to a refining facility, emitting radiation all the way. Every refining facility in existence hs had countless episodes of leaks and contamination. Then it has to be transported again, in a highly concentrated form, making it a rich target for terrorists. In operation, nuclear power plants are subject to all kinds of accidents, some of them dangerous enough to make vast areas permanently uninhabitable, as at Chrnobyl. People say it can't happen in the US, but it almost has, more thaan once. And then when the fuel is used up, the waste has to be stored safely for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years! What technology do you have that much faith in? The country's only two hundred years old! The Roman Empire lasted only one thousand. A hundred thousand years ago people lived in caves. No, the benefits do not come close to matching the dangers.

Answer 6

Most scientists and many environmentalists disagree with you, because of global warming.

The risks of global warming are clearly greater, and it's hard to see a short term solution for global warming without building a lot of nuclear power.

We can build plants that are safe and safe from terrorists. We're very good at that kind of engineering. We know how to bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to pick a site.

These websites have more information:

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
http://www.ecolo.org/

Answer 7

In the hands of countries like the U.S. or France, it is safe. But in the hands of countries like Iran or North Korea, it is a danger.

Answer 8

Sorry; the dangers don't equal its possible benifits. Wind and solar power offer a much better and cleaner solution.

Answer 9

If they could do something with the waste it would be ideal.

Answer 10

I agree with TG.