why do we still use nuclear energy? considering its high potential for destroying our enviorment and life.?

Question

i did a search and realized that we really rely heavily on nuclear energy. i think the technology to utilize this energy when it came about way back when was a time when we werent as knowledgable or aware of our enviroment like we are now. atleast more so than that time. we would we have alowed the use of such harmful energy knowing what we know now? why do we still use it and when will we stop? it seems like we give our decision making to those who should make the best decision and then we ultimately pay in the end.

those who are skeptical check yucca mountain nuclear storage program. wisconsins wolf river batholith is the second future option that is being debated to store nuclear waste. nuclear energy isnt clean. its the cleanest but far from clean. also two reasons that keep nuclear energy as the best choice. it is the cheapest to produce. its the best established form. with enough research we can come up with something better. its just the common understanding is that we already have something. why try something else. if a mistake happens it will be a disaster.

this answers voice of reasons question. uhh........ chernobyl ??? duh.....

also this is just nuclear program related. did you guys hear about that incident regarding the ariforce that just happened recently? ARMED nukes flying over the united states in a bomber from i beleive it was north dakota to louisiana. and they didnt know they were armed. 80 or so airmen are facing serious penalties. and put millions at risk.

Answer 1

Well, no new plants have been built for a very long time because of this. But what's the alternative? Ultra-polluting coal plants? High-expense natural-gas plants? Highly localized hydroelectric plants? Inefficient solar plants?

Nuclear makes sense right now to power the tools we need to produce the next generation of power producers, whatever that may be.

Answer 2

Because it is the cleanest and safest form of power we have (there is only one case of off-site consequences from nuclear energy production and even that is debatable). We won't stop using it because it is necessary to use it if we are to run our civilisation without emitting CO2 (which as you may or may not be aware is causing global warming which is the biggest environment problem we are currently facing).

Solar and Wind which are what some people would like to use just aren't all that good because they don't work when you need them to (though solar is better in that regard it still won't work at night and doesn't work as well on cloudy days as well as being quite a bit more expensive) which means you need other power sources to take up the load when they aren't working and those other power sources are usually fossil fuel based which means that all solar and wind can do right now is reduce the emissions of a coal or methane fired power plant, not replace it (at least not until we've solved the problem of large scale energy storage which is decades away).

Of course the fact that wind and solar can't replace coal and methane while nuclear fission can makes the fossil fuel industry want nuclear gone so they're quite willing to give money to those who will lie about nuclear power (along with the potential of non-nuclear alternatives since if people perceive solar and wind as they truly are they won't take long to want nuclear).

Oh and stop confusing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, most of the problems of the nuclear industry come from the weapons side of it (in fact part of the problem at Chernobyl was that it was designed to be able to produce weapons grade plutonium which most other power reactors can't do economically).

Answer 3

We still use nuclear energy despite it's disastrous effects when used unsafely because it is one of the cheapest kind of energy. In reality, nuclear energy is actually safer for the environment than burning coal if it is used CORRECTLY and with EXTREME care. When not used correctly, you have disasters that still have a hold on the world thousands of years later. The thing is, using nuclear energy, which relies on nuclear fission using uranium, you use up less resources and still produce the same amount of energy. 1 pound of uranium can generate the equivalent of 3 million pounds or 1500 tons of coal.

The biggest reason, besides it's efficiency, is of course, money. Nuclear energy is a lot cheaper to produce than burning fossil fuels. In fact, much of the Ukrainian population DEPEND on nuclear energy because they just can't afford any other kind of energy.

~edit~

Yes, Chernobyl was a horrible accident and COULD have been prevented. The flaw was in the design of the reactor and the decisions made by the PEOPLE. Three-Mile Island was a tragedy waiting to happen but never did BECAUSE people found and corrected the problem. They actually learned from their mistakes. The USSR government, on the other hand, kept most nuclear accidents a secret among the nuclear energy industry thus giving the workers this misconception that the nuclear reactors are actually quite safe. The workers themselves did not have proper training. There were many times throughout the night that the accident could have been prevented but the man in charge CHOSE not to stop. And yet, despite the horrible accident Ukraine STILL uses nuclear energy. In fact, many residents of Ukraine cannot afford anything other than nuclear energy, as i have stated before.

Answer 4

Would you car to document your statement that there is a "high potential for destroying our environment and life? Do you have any actual evidence of this, or is it just your opinion? What actual damage to the environment or loss of life can you actually link to nuclear power generation?

That's one, out of how many nuclear plants in the world. And Chernobyl was a carbon pile plant, not the type ever used in the west. The incident was caused by a fire in the carbon blocks, it could never happen in a modern Western designed power plant. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with nuclear power so mentioning this event is nothing more than misdirection. Again, how many deaths can you attribute to modern, Western designed nuclear power stations, how much verifiable environmental damage?

Answer 5

Because it's not actually all that dangerous.

There is actually more radiation coming out of a coal-fired power plan than a nuclear one, because coal-fired plants aren't anything like as well-shielded as nuclear plants -- coal contains traces of radioactive material, and radioactivity is not destroyed by burning.

Properly-constructed and maintained nuclear power plants are the cleanest and safest energy source around. Now put away the 1950s horror films and learn some physics.

Answer 6

Your question has an easy answer, and its only one word. ''Greed"!!!! Too many people are either sceptical, uneducated, or dont want to spend the kind of money it would take to go off grid. So many homes are being built today that have geothermal heat which saves 60-70% on the average heat bill. But, even that alone is still not enough to reduce the ammount of energy we use as a growing population. We dont have enough dams to produce the electricity we need,& coal is way too polluting. We dont have the same amount of wind flow throughout the country so windfarms isn't the answer for the whole country either. So, all I know that we can do together as a country is to produce more homes that operate off grid. Totally self sufficient in power, off grid homes would massively reduce our energy consumption eventually leading to the end of having nuclear power plants. No gas bill,no electric bill, the only bill you may have is water unless you are fortunate enough to have a house in the country with a well or natural spring. It may cost more in the begining to build a home designed this way but,when your rich neighbors down the road build homes with big vaulted ceilings and are compaining in how much it costs to heat them, you will have little or virtually no cost at all. Not to mention that you will be doing a huge part in saving money but, the environment as well. Their will always be nuclear power plants untill people stand united enough to go off grid. Lets just say that if your average gas/electric bill together was about $300 a month. In the next 10 years you would have spent $36,000.00 to $45,000.00 in utility payments. For allot less you can build your home off grid. Whether or not if you are an environmentalist or not,I think most people would love to have that kind of money in their own pockets. Think of what your homes value would be compared to the neighbor down the street with the vaulted ceilings?

Answer 7

Many people are scared of new technology. Remember how many people were against the airplane when that was first invented? Many people like you wanted to ban airplanes because they thought they were very dangerous.

Nuclear power is very, very safe. More people get killed in mining accidents, or auto accidents each year than the total killed through the history of the nuclear power industry.

Nuclear power allows the production of enormous quantities of electric power with the added benefit of producing no green house gasses.

Without any doubt, there should be thousands of these power plants being built rather coal plants.

Answer 8

Hello


Common nuclear energy is bad used and bad methods are used, remember this energy don´t was created for help to the humankind was created for design a nuclear bomb and kill people, then it was used for try to help to the energy requeriments of the humankind, but if that is the case the methods must be restarted of zero looking for other way to get atomic power can be ecologycal, lower costs and secure for the human health, and there is too much methods, one is to use the common carbon or coal, discharging condensers into carbon rods you get nuclear power at a common rate of 8 KW for each gram of carbon transformed, transformed carbon is recycled for get a too large duration, and radiations here are not a final product not desired, beta rays produced are the main fuel of this nuclear method, you can see more details in this web site


http://econuclear.tk

The site is in spanish but you can translate


Technnology as the mentioned can be used in rich and poor countries, but never you see scientifics can restart your methods and see your methods are too high in costs in money and health damage and ecology damage


Good bye

Answer 9

Nuclear energy is the safest, cheapest and environment friendly energy. You first go through the safety systems of the nuclear energy. They have various layers of safety systems. It is said that even during earth quake, the reactor is the best safest place in the earth.
The accidents or incidents occur due to violation of safety norms and manual errors and not because of the safety system.

Answer 10

Nuclear energy reactors, if constructed well and maintained well, are some of the cleanest sources of energy, the European, and mainly the french example demonstrates it.
nuclear reactors are very expensive to build, and once they are in place they must be operated in full power for a very long time to recover the basic investment.