Will nuclear energy be the solution for oil crisis ?

Answer 1

when will people realize that there is only so much oil in the ground.......

Nuclear power plants can provide 2400 mega watts on a 200 acre parcel......

the biggest wind turbine can generate 1 mega watt and I would think you would need at least 3 to 4 acres per turbine so do the math......

nuclear power is not the best option but it can tide us over until solar power plant efficiency rises dramatically

I've been told that in Oak ridge there is enough depleted uranium to supply fast breeder reactors to supply the United States with ALL of electric needs for 400 years.......but running fast breeder reactors is not social acceptable today..
but dumping all that CO2 must be.........

as far as storing all those fuel rods you can thank the worlds best democratic president Jimmy Carter for outlawing nuclear fuel RE-processing.........we would not have to store fuel rods if they were in a RECYCLING chain

as far as low level waste from reactors the isotope generally to worry about is Cesium 137 and with a 30 year half life and considering 99% will be gone in 7 half lifes(about 200 years) so storing low level waste is a manageable task if done correctly

Answer 2

Nuclear energy may be a solution but we are far away from a crisis. Prices may be high but there is a ways to go.

Nevertheless, alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar or hydrogen and whatever else people will think up in the coming decades will have more backing of the general public. It will have to be the public that will decide and the word nuclear does not sit well most of the time.

Go green! Take care.

Answer 3

It should be and has all the potential for it. HOWEVER, the potential for disaster is real and makes the Exxon Valdez crash look like a small spill.

And then you have the government, the greedy power companies and the poorly trained operators with complacent regulators and you have a disaster in waiting. Remember Three Mile Is. in PA, Chernobyl in USSR and the day we almost lost Detroit - Fermie Nuclear Stn in MI.

Possible solution, but is the high price worth it. Money best spent on finding better ways to get energy from the sun or air or any other alternative fuel. It is out there, only it would cost the companies too much (their opinions, not mine) to market it. Remember, profit is their number 1 priority.

Answer 4

It could be. But nuclear power has been so politicized I doubt your average American would give much independent thought to the possibility.

Environmentalists seem to discard the thought because of the production of waste. Despite the fact that nuclear waste has less of an impact on the environment than oil/coal fire generators (which is where most of our power comes from) that spew out all kinds of nastiness into the air. There are actually several reasons nuclear power is better to the environment:

1. You don't destroy huge tracts of the environment collecting nuclear fuel. We destroy HUGE tracts of the environment collecting coal and oil.

2. There is no waste by-product being pumped directly into the environment with nuclear power. The waste is so little it easy to package and dispose of in a better way.

3. We wouldn't have to ship oil/coal across the ocean or environmentally protected areas, destroying the environment in the process with the odd accident.

4. If you are a member of the Global Warming shin-dig there is also the distinct absence of environmently warming agents with nuclear power.

For the people that say solar energy is the way: Despite the fact that no one has figured out a way to make it efficient enough to be worth it, how do you expect the average person to drop the $30,000 worth of solar panels on their house to afford solar energy? I personally can't afford that. What about all the people that don't even own but rent? Are you expecting landlords to add hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of solar panels on their small apartment complexes? OR are you expecting the government/utility companies to make the thousands of acres upon acres of solar 'farms' that would be needed across our environment? And then what happens on a cloudy day or at night? Is every house and home going to have to also buy $30,000 worth of batteries as well to live in the modern age? What will happen to major cities that don't have the space for all the needed solar panels?

Answer 5

No, because Democrats have stopped us from building any more nuclear energy plants.
Democrats have also stopped us from drilling for oil in Anwr, much of the Off Shore, and on Oil Rich Government Land.

Democrats know what they are doing.
But no one else can figure it out.
They are cunning and conniving.

OIL IS STILL THE BEST & THE CHEAPEST.

Answer 6

No, it won't.
First of all, there is no oil crisis, the world is awash in oil.
Second, nuclear power plants are the most expensive method ever devised for boiling water. The only real purpose of large reactors is to supply plutonium for making bombs.
Nuclear waste produces huge amounts of HEAT for thousands of years, and has no permanent storage protocol.
For the good of humanity we should de-commission ALL nuclear eactors, worldwide.

Answer 7

Good Lord Hon---I hope not.
Anyone here remember Chernobl...or, closer to home, Three Mile Island?
Please remember that a large portion of one of the U.S.'s most densely populated areas---California---is earthquake-prone. I shudder to even think about it.
Additionally, the government STILL can't decide to do with all those spent fuel rods. Do you want 'em in your backyard? Of course not, and no one else does either.
In theory, nuclear power can be "cheap" but think of the possible consequences. Further development of wind and solar would be far preferable, if only the (oil) companies who run this government would concede to it.

Answer 8

no because the same people that control our oil will control our nuclear energy. The only reason there is an "oil shortage" is because the powers that be are not producing it at the rate we need it. We have enough oil to last us for the next five centuries, easy.

Oil shortage, global warming caused by my Ford SUV, -- don't believe the hype

Answer 9

short term, maybe, altho it takes 10 years and a billion $$ to build one, and by then we may have past the point where the economy of growth which depends on cheap, abundant energy has broken down.....then where's the $$ gonna come from to build those nuke plants...AND uranium is peaking, too, just like oil and gas......the issue from water to food to energy to gadgets is coming down to too many people using too many resources too fast....the earth is a finite resources, but our greed and demand and drive to reproduce are not finite. At some point we're gonna hit a wall. And it may be very soon!

Answer 10

specific ordinary Atomics, Areva, and Westinghouse/PBMR, have been provided contracts to layout the subsequent era Nuclear vegetation(NGNP), or Gen IV nuclear reactors. they are going to be extra useful, safer nuclear vegetation, that not purely produce means extra effectively than their until eventually now opposite numbers, yet in addition produce great volume of hydrogen gasoline. the answer to the waste seems to be working it by using an entire spectrum of reactors which will use it to offer extra potential.