Is nuclear power the only option?

Question

So many "experts" are in the pocket of big business. All those arguments about how we must have more nuclear power stations as if those are God's gift! Why don't more environmental groups inform the public about the real threats and dangers posed to the public? Are they all too scared to speak out because they fear there is no alternative?

Get the true facts here:
http://www.the-alternative.org.uk/c6.pdf

Answer 1

You have made your mind up then.

Answer 2

A big no. Anyway, the government will go on with its plan as usual once it has its mind onto something. I believe a special committee had already been set up years ago to research if using nuclear power is viable for Singapore. Talking about concern, the first question that spring to mind is: 1)Is it necessary? 2) Is the government going to handle the project or the project being tendered out to private organisation, which will lead to price issue for the power generated? 3) Any subsidy; as it is riskier for citizen, the bill should be cheaper.. I still think that the Singapore Government just want to put Singapore on the map again as the first asian country that successfully utilise nuclear power to actually power the economy forward. Thats the whole idea behind it, at least thats what I think. Singapore is trying its very hard to be the first in everything, I don't know why this is so. Maybe the term 'kiasu' plays a part. Talking about expert handling the nuclear plant if the government choose to go ahead with the plan, for those of you who are naive enough to ask this, here is the answer. Again, I believe the government had already sent a couple of guys over to its allies with nuclear plant to learn the ropes. If push come to shove, Singapore will do what it is good at, import foreign talent. End of sermon.

Answer 3

In order to address global warming, we'll need nuclear, at least for 10-40 years.

The other forms of non-fossil fuel energy are simply not capable right now to pick up the "base load", especially with electric cars.

Yes, we should build as much solar, wind, and biofuel capacity as we can. And use conservation. We'll still need nuclear for the main base.

We can build nuclear 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. Here's an example.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

It's just a political problem to pick a site.

A reasonable goal would be to improve other forms of energy so that we just run the nuclear plants for one "lifecycle" and replace them with other forms as they wear out.

Answer 4

Nuclear power is really the only option if we want to drastically reduce green house gas emissions while maintaining our current level of economic growth and the standard of living that we all have come to expect. If all of the so called environmentalists were truelly interested in saving the environment they would be marching to demand nuclear power, coupled with spent fuel reprocessing (i.e. the French solution) right now. Of course, saving the environment is not really the true agenda of organization like Greenpeace, WWF, the Green party or Al Gore. There true agenda is to:

1) Reduce or eliminated much of our current technology in order to
2) Reduce economic growth so that most individuals will be dependent on the government (with them in charge) for their survival so that
3) The government (with them in charge of course) will be in control of every aspect of our lives.

Answer 5

Nuclear powerplants, if managed properly, can be absolutely safe, and an extremely efficient way of producing power. Everyone is in agreement that fossil fuels are running out, average guess seems to be about 60/70 years. Alternative powerplants are not really an option, seen as some are underpowered and expensive (solar), require special weather conditions (wind) or environmental features (geothermal or HEP)

Nuclear power will not run out for a long, long, long time yet, and is capable of supplying the entire world with power.

Course you have to get rid of the waste somewhere, but that's what space is for :P

Answer 6

At this time, Nuclear Power is the only cost effective option we have available that has the ability to provide the amount of clean power we need to reverse global warming, other than massive conservation which would mean the entire world changing it's way of life.

It has nothing to do with Oil Companies, Governments, corporations, etc. It is just the sad fact. I wish it wasn't, but it is. There are and have been hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists trying to produce other viable options. Many great options like Solar, Wind, etc. are good, but none at this time can replace enough to make a big difference cost effectively. Even if we said cost is not a factor, and covered the country with wind generators and solar panels, the environmental impact would be beyond our imagination due to the area it would require to develop.

Answer 7

No.Nuclear power is at the cost of future generations.Nuclear waste is going to be bigger problem than nuclear bomb.Western countries will have tom invade other countries to dump nuclear waste.We should try alternate sources or energy conserving devises.We have to develop vehicles running on hydrogen or water.Solar energy should be tapped.People should use bicycles and low cost public transportation will conserve oil.What is preventing US and western countries for not doing new technology development is vested interest.If the petrol and nuclear technolgy is not promoted,and sold,their economy will be in shambles!It is just "salesmans job".The strengh of US $ depends on its vast untapped oil resources and nuclear capability.

Answer 8

Gaby: you have a 1990-2000 perspective... why would you build a lot of nuclear power plants if in 20 years we can have several sources of renewable energies at grid parity (same cost in the grid) as other energy sources ???).

You are making the assumption that the technology is almost frozen.... It is not !!! And you simply underestimate the saving potentials.


FOR THE LINK: Sorry but your document is UNREADABLE !!!

Remove the highlights please !

Among possible power sources with their conversion we have:
- solar PV
- solar water heater
- concentrated solar heat
- oceanic streams (through turbines)
- tidal dams
- artificial tidal lagoons
- tidal streams
- wave power (coasal or off shore)
- plancton production and harvest
- algeas and other sea biomass
- osmotic power (potential through the difference between soft and salt water)
- off shore wind power
- on land wind power
- geothermal energy
- hydro power (small and large scale)
- solar lagoons
- on-land biomass (extremely diverse; includes charcoal, biogas, biodiesel, etc.)

And I have not by far finished the list



And last but not least, let´s not forget the energy efficiency and the possibilities to cogenerate

Answer 9

Do you really expect anybody to read 44 pages of closely typed rambling text?

No, nuclear power is not the only option.

Answer 10

There is Solar, Electric, and Physical energy, so you can use electric, and solar power to run vehicles, business, residential, or commerical if you wanted to go that route. You can use your physical energy to walk and run to get around thats up to you. Josh Of FL