It is not economically viable!! and there are plenty of other options available, at half the cost, and risk of this ???
do you have a lot of mates in the industry??
2007-08-05 18:11:38 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
Nuclear plants are risky, from an contamination angle and a terorrist scurity angle. A simple contamination thru security breach could wipe out lots of people.
Solar and wind are the best options, problem with solar is efficiency and daytime availability.
Possibly if the entire world creates a global solar power grid then even availability may be a non-issue.
Till then we have to live with this nuclear mess.
I would bet for solar,hydel,wind,tidal power anytime better than nuclear.
BTW the Russians are building some good plants to generate electricity from tidal power.
2007-08-05 22:52:29 · answer #1 · answered by funnysam2006 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The United States problem with nuclear power, is that we don't have standardized plants.
If you look at France for example, almost all of their nuclear plants are identical in design. In the states, you'd be hard pressed to find two plants that are the same.
Without standardization you run the risk of accidents and it increases the complexity, of an all ready dangerous power source.
Nuclear power used wisely, is a reliable, and economically feasible source of energy.
Solar, wind and wave power sources are limited in what they can do.
Solar needs huge amounts of land for their panel arrays. Wind is constrained to certain areas of the states and the turbines kill large amounts of bird life. Wave energy just hasn't met it's potential through technological advances yet.
Geothermal has benefits and it works quite well. It's drawback is that the wells have to be re-drilled, every 20 to 50 years, due to loss of heat transfer. The process of draining heat from the rock cores, actually drains so much heat from the rock, that it's too cool to generate steam.
Fossil fuels are by their nature, finite and dirty. Their also getting very expensive.
Nuclear power is at this time, the most feasible and sensible source of power, available for us to use.
2007-08-05 20:16:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What risks? Nuclear Power has been around for almost 50 years. What risks have there been in the past? Look at the safety of nuclear power objectively, and there is no safer technology.
And with over 50% of all green house gases produced by power generation, it makes sense that we start building more nukes.
2007-08-06 01:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess you would rather have coal burning plants instead? Wind and solar cost more to build and maintain than a nuclear power plant. So, now that those options are out, now what....Oil? According to the tree huggers in the 70's we only had enough oil for 30 yrs. Well, now its 35yrs later and we have plenty still. Go figure.
2007-08-05 19:17:25 · answer #4 · answered by Coach 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear energy is actually about half (or less) the cost of coal or oil fired electrical power...
The US Navy uses Nuclear power because it is more reliable and CHEAPER than an oil fired propulsion system. It costs far less to operate a nuclear powered aircraft carrier than an oil fired one.
Basicly... for you to think that nuclear is more expensive reflects that you haven't got a clue.
2007-08-05 18:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I assume you would probably be opposed to a dirty coal factory? Nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly and run little risk of problems. Much of Europe's electricity is supplied by nuclear power plants.
2007-08-05 18:22:22 · answer #6 · answered by 5_for_fighting 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actually think nuclear energy is good idea...PROVIDED we eliminate the terrorist atmosphere that is so present at the moment. The main drawback to wide-scale nuclear power is the vulnerability to attack. I think our leadership needs to get their act together in Iraq, piece the middle east back together, and then work on developing nuclear powered electricity.
2007-08-05 20:37:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think there is such a thing as a responsible government ,whether it be economically or even less morally
Often what appears to be economically sound turns out to cost a lot in other areas,such as Environmental or Human resources
2007-08-05 18:53:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well you said there are others without stating which ones. Back up your claim. This is no different than the steam engine vs. manpower (Paul Bunyan)He lost to machine.
2007-08-05 18:40:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because none of the other options have the current ability of handing the world's demand for energy ... at least, not yet.
2007-08-05 18:39:12 · answer #10 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋