Do you people realize?

Question

that if we simply used much more nuclear power we would cripple the middle east's oil monopoly, make us an independant nature, and it would be better for the environment. do not even bother responding if you dont know anything about nuclear power besides what ill-educated fear mongers have told you

this one is for gilliegrrrl--nice name by the way....my father is nuclear engineer who runs a company that desposes of nuclear waste, if you dont believe me check out cabrereservices.com, i work here. so you probably picked the wrong person to try your simple minded nonsense with. you bury the waste, in a sealed container, and there isnt mass quantities of it, it lasts for a long time, its much cleaner then coal, oil, or even wood burning for that matter...its also cheap and very safe. sorry i still cant get over the fact that you actually asked me what to do with it when i work for a company that does it........i mean wow you must feel really stupid

ps...it angers me that the french were smart enough to do it and we werent, i mean come on

Answer 1

Nuclear power = death. Didn't Three Mile Island and Chernobyl teach you anything?

Answer 2

No matter how good the party is, you always have to pay the bill when it comes due. It is not a clean source of energy. You just get to defer payments for a number of years, but the bill is still the same. And it's one hell of a bill after that many years. It follows the old Magickal adage: everything has a price.

Granted, if you can guarantee that no accidents would ever occur (you cannot), you still have to deal with amazingly concentrated piles of the most toxic substances on the planet when the fuel is spent. You have to put it somewhere. Shooting it out into space is just silly and dangerous. Burying it is just as dangerous. What do you propose to do with it?

Finally, in this day and age of the potential of global terrorism, how do you propose to guard and protect the vast amount of nuke plants you're proposing to put up? The cost of that ALONE is prohibitive of putting them up. We'll lose far more money in the long run.

Coal is a better answer than nuclear energy. Coal plants can be made to almost burn 100% cleanly (check out the coal burning plant in Colorado Springs, CO if you doubt that claim). Windfarms, solar energy, geothermal and hydroelectic would do the same if it were REALLY a matter of national security to become fossil-fuel independent. Fuel cells. Hell, even HYBRIDS would reduce our oil needs so much that it would cause a serious loss of revenue to OPEC and the other nations that will eventually be able to exploit oil.

Nukes? Good Lord. I can't believe people are still trying to pimp this old whore out.

Answer 3

No, most people don't realize that.

They don't realize that the amount of radiation emitted by most modern reactors is less than they get from an average television set at the same distance.

They don't realize that we could bury the nuclear waste in the exact same location we dug up the fuel -- and aside from the mining itself -- the waste is less harmful to the environment than the raw fuel.

They don't realize that for nuclear technology to have same same impact as teh coal industry, we'd need to have at least one full meltdown PER WEEK every week.

It's not a long-term solution, but it would solve a lot of the problems over the next several decades while we develop truly renewable energy alternatives.

Answer 4

Yes. 60 MINUTES did a fascinating report about France's use of nuclear power, which has so far proven very safe and given them the best air in all of Europe. Those "snooty" French don't like to be beholden to other people for their energy... I guess it worked out for them this time!

The French recycle the used fuel and use it again--that part's on page 3 of the article I've referenced.

Answer 5

I have been advocating more nuclear power for at least 15 years. The one reason France has a more advanced nuclear energy infrastructure is their use of standardized plants--one design used everywhere, so the plants can shift parts or personnel as needed without needing to retrain anyone. All the plants used here are unique designs, which is incredibly wasteful.

Answer 6

I support nuclear power, it's cleaner and safer than nearly any other form, but it won't do much to get us off oil. Oil isn't primarily used for power production, far more coal and natural gas is. You can't use uranium to power a car, you can't use it to create synthetic materials (plastics, nylon, ect.). It's not a viable solution to get us off of foreign oil. Now, if you wanted to talk about hydrogen fuel cells, you would have a point.

Answer 7

Nuclear Power would be an quite an assist to this countries energy woes, if and only if, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was able to operate as intended. As it stands now they are underfunded and overrun with inept bureaucrats. Until those in positions of power decide to decrease our dependence on foreign energy supplies, nothing will change.

Answer 8

to many people are skeptical about nuclear power for a great deal more stations to be built, chances are we'll always have to rely on the middle east, plus oil is used for more than just power

but im all for nuclear power!!

Answer 9

Fairly irrelevant. I do agree with you that for the most part it is better than what we have done so far; but we seem intent upon destroying ourselves in any way possible. If we don't do it with oil we will do it with weapons, or destruction of the ozone, or destruction of enough plants/animals to completely throw nature off balance to the point it can no longer support us.

Everything we are doing, have done, and more than likely ever will do is moving us toward our own destruction. We are incapable of destroying all life on Earth but we are more than likely capable of destroying most of it and certainly ourselves. Everyone better hope there is a God (any God) because only He (or She, or They--whichever you believe) can save us now.

Answer 10

I guess I am ill-educated, since I hadn't realized that the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste had been solved.

Answer 11

So, if YOU'RE so smart and educated (and your grammar makes me doubt that) about nukes, explain to us all EXACTLY what should be done with the vast amounts of radioactive waste produced by each and every nuclear power plant? Go for it. Edit your question. What should we do with it? I can't wait to hear your answer.