As an alternative energy source how does nuclear rate with you?

Question

I am an anti-nuke campaigner from way back so don't even bother guessing what side of the fence I sit on... nuclear energy is an amazing but unfortunate waste of time I think we should steer well clear of. Any opinions out there on this?? What would be a better alternative energy source?

Answer 1

It's tempting, but there is still no good way to dispose of spent fuel.

I like wind power, but people are fussing because they think it's ugly. I say it's no uglier than the stupid power lines that are strung up around us already.
.

Answer 2

I like Nuclear. It is the only alternative available at this time which can supply the amount of reliable energy we need to maintain our way of life without adding to global warming. Nuclear power also has the ability to be more self sustaining by using breeder reactors.

I believe we must conserve as much as possible along with Nuclear Power for electricity. We must be more practical and use smaller cars and homes.

Don't misunderstand. I love Wind and Solar. I am looking at installing on my home through the Citizenre program. I worked in the power energy business for many years. Solar and Wind power are great and should be used where possible and practicle. They both require very large land areas to produce a significant amount of power. Wind takes a few acres to produce a couple of Megawatts. Solar would take much more. Both are not reliable because they depend on nature which is unpredictable at times and niether works 24/7.

It doesn't take much calculating to figure out how much area and cost it takes to produce power from Solar and Wind. You realize very quickly they are not good for all areas, and certainly cannot supply the enormous amount needed for most areas.

As for Hydro, Wave action, etc., etc., there have been many good scientists and engineers working on these ideas for many years. They are not stupid, and if they could be more, there would be. The answers I see on this midium seems to assume no one has been working on all these things due to some mysterious plot. I can assure you that is not true. Billions have been spent by researchers on all these ideas.

That is why in the 60's and 70's, the utility industry tried to go nuclear. Those of us professionals new then it was our best hope to get off fossil fuels. You will also finally come to the same conclusion after you study enough.

Answer 3

I would not say that nuclear is an alternative source of energy. It is well known and quite widespread. Therefore it is more of a conventional way of generating power.

I would just like to compare the money invested in nuclear research for power generation compared to what has been invested in the research for alternative source of energy....

And if you count the cost of the research + cost of the nuclear wastes, you can really doubt whether it is worth it. Especially when we know that using only nuclear fusion without breeding reactors, it could cover 100% of the world annual energy consumption (0.47 ZJ) for 35 years since the reserves are estimated at 17ZJ.

If you invest the cost of a reactor (2 billion) in energy efficiency, you save more energy than the reactor would have produced so it is better.

Answer 4

Although I prefer windpower, it would take several million wind turbines just to replace all of the coal fired power plants in the United States.

Where wind turbine projects are proposed they are often tied up in court, such as the court actions filed by Ted Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. opposing wind turbines in Nantucket sound because they would be visible from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport.

Coal fired power plants produce over 50% of the electricity in the United States and produce over 2,000 tons of radioactive waste each year because coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium(1).

We must replace the coal fired power plants in the United States as soon as possible.

It appears to me that the only realistic replacement is nuclear power plants.

For all of their problems, nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as coal fired power plants and actually produce less radioactive waste than coal fired power plants.

Answer 5

Nuclear is the only real option to maintain our standard of living and the current world population.

An inconvenient truth that can be figured out with a calculator.

Sorry