Which is safer-Nuclear Energy or Fossil Fuels?

Question

Our government is finally going to build new nuclear plants and people think that is bad!
How many People IN THIS COUNTRY have died from Nuclear Power?
ZERO
How Many have died from coal mining?
A whole lot!
When are people going to realize that Nuclear power is the way to go. Please give me your pros-and cons.

White Star, can you honestlybelieve we can run our country and infrastructure from a windmill?

Answer 1

Nuclear is the safest ,and best bet ..

I heard that some group was against Nuclear , then another group against stealing sun light , and now another group is complaining about the big windmills killing birds ....

Dayum , everything that is tried as an alternative some environmentalist somewhere is against it ....the only things they are for are the CFL bulbs and E-85 ethanol ....which of course is not as good as they think , CFL's are full of mercury , and if you bust one in your home look out , a lady in Washington State dropped one , called the store the store sent DHEC to her house and charged her $2500.00 for the clean up........and the E-85 burns faster than 93 octane which is more fill ups and still using oil to make it .......

Sounds like most environmentalist are either hypocrites, or just stupid ....

By the way , my energy is comes from from a Nuclear plant and it has helped our enviroment , more jobs and reduced the reliance on fossil-fuel burning plants whose emissions have been blamed on mercury in local lakes and contribute to global warming.

My power company " Duke Power" already operates one of the nation's largest nuclear generating stations right here near my house it is a massive three-reactor Oconee Nuclear Station on the banks of Lake Keowee. Since the station went online in 1973, the Keowee and Jocassee lakes were built to feed its appetite for cooling water have grown to become some of the most exclusive and expensive zip codes in the south eastern region. Basically the area has become a place for clean air , mountian views , and multi million dollar estates ...I love it here , and I run everything day ,and night , and my bill is never over 100 dollars ..this includes the times of year when you run the A/C during the day , and the Heat at night ...

All of us who live around of the three 846-megawatt reactors have developed an easy peace with the plant, consoled by three decades of safety. We realize that it's here, and we know that there's always potential risk, but we also ride Harleys and there's a risk involved in that,........

Answer 2

Yea you'll think that till you get your first utility bill from one. Its time to look at ending socialized energy production and distribution period(beginning with the residential sector first. Independent renewable energy production systems would be a heck of a lot more cost effective and offer a much better alternative than that of putting a controlled nuclear detonation anywhere near populations. Yes to a point they are safe, but there is always a chance of another meltdown(i.e. Three mile island), which with respect caused very little environmental nor human physical impact. Not so in the case of Chernobyl. That was devastating period. not to mention the fact that Nuclear power plants could be terrorist targets as well. Not only do you wipe out a complete grid of energy users that use its power, but you also expose them to the threat of complete radioactive breach.
Not only that this type of energy production system puts the control of the energy most depend on for everyday life(but usually take for granted) in the hands of the government. They can shut you down at any time. For any reason. Plus you have to pay them to keep your lights turned on(the corporations that run them that is). Did you also know that ALL electrical utility companies get so many dollars per year from the federal government as in the form of subsidies?. Personally i like the idea of paying for something once and maybe every several years doing preventative maintenance to a system that i personally own and produce power for my home. not only that, it is definitely a heck of a lot more environmentally friendly. Green as a matter of fact. i find it a little twisted that ppl that come up with better energy alternatives are the actual ones putting their lives on the line because their ideasand implementation of energy production don't include power and control of the population.
Keep in mind that electricity is still merely theory. Explore the alternatives as well. Theres some really good ones out there.

Heres a little info on TMI-02 from the NRC
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

They also supplied a good link for the Chernobyl incident as well.

Answer 3

Nuclear is safer, especially with 4th generation plants. However that does not mean we shouldn't research other alternatives. Solar and Wind should play a more signifigant part in our energy infastructure policy, and we should also perform more research on the Thorium fuel cycle, fuel recycling, for the time when our uranium stocks begin to expire.

Answer 4

Nuclear power, coal, and natural gas is dead. Pollution free overabundant cheap electric power is going to kill them all. No fueled process can compete witha fuel-less one. Fuel-less electricity has no inflation in it either so the lower cost will remain stable far into the future.

These new power plants have a much longer life span than the fueled power plants. These fuel-less power plants have a life span over 100 years. Again fuel-less power out performs all the fueled power plants. Fueled electric power is dead and they don't know it yet.

The world of electric power will soon be turned inside out and upside down with the new energy generating system from Permanent Energy Inc. A new 100% clean overabundant era in electric power generation is on the horizon. A whole new class of electric power that’s fuel-less, pollution-free, closed circuit hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power now able to be built anywhere that out produces Nuclear and even Fusion in the far off future.

These new power plants have over 1,000,000 mega-watt capability, but are now limited to a little over 1,500 mega-watts by the existing power grid. Hydroelectric power requires no chemicals, smoke stacks, waste discharge, and no fuel is burned. The fact that these plants are fuel-less should make the electric out-put from these plants the cheapest electric power available in the US and it‘s 100% clean.

This new era of electric power will end conservation forever and make electricity cheap and overabundant. These plants will make it possible to build new electric powered roads to run clean electric cars and trucks. Building these new power plants and electric roads will make millions of high wage jobs all across the US. High wage jobs to replace all the lost manufacturing jobs in recent years.

This could be the start of an economic expansion that has never before been seen. Millions upon millions of jobs, from construction to farming. Clean power to fuel a new American era enough to run cars, trucks, homes, industry, clean all our polluted water, run grow lights to increase farm out put, clean US made power to export to the world, and this is only the beginning.


www.uspto.gov enter # 5,430,333

Answer 5

Atomic power is far cleaner than any fossil fuel power plant. the people that are against it cite 3Mile island as an example forgetting that all the safety systems worked and the plant shut itself down. I am 100% behind safe clean Atomic power.

Answer 6

yes i totally agree!
fact: u get more radiation from being in the sun for 15 mins then u do living in a nuclear plant your whole life!

Answer 7

The way to go is to abandon both ideas and go with a sources of energy that are not finite (wind, solar, etc..) We need to end our wasteful society or we are just postponing the inevitable.

Answer 8

There are PRO' CON on both the sides.

There are several accident in fossil fuel, but mainly it pollute and resouce is limited.

On nuclear side, TMI and Brownferry of USA; CHARNOBYL of USSR has proven to be fatal to the nation.

Therefore both has advantage disadvantages but one has to go nuclear bacause fossil is goining to be exhausted in 60 years from now.

Like POOR india is making deal with USA for peaceful use by POOR Indian.

Why?

INDIA GO NUCLEAR - Why, How, When What ?

TO MEET ENERGY NEED AFTER 60 YEARS India shall go nuclear and sign treaty like 123 / NPT.

Is nuclear deal of India with US is really worth? It worth down the line of 50 - 60 years.

[A}.-Why worth ?

1) Fossile fuel is limited in INDIA and world.,
2) Nuclear fuel is also limited in INDIA AS WELL AS in world but can give enrgy for some years.

[B]. - Con of Nuclear?

Cost of coal based power is Rs 1.50 / KWHcompared to Rs 3.00 /KWH for nuclear.

Like petroleum, Foreign currancy will goout for
1). TECHNOLOGY,
2). FUEL,
3). INSPECTION,
4). EQUIPMENT, ETC
5) dependent on other
6) Possible stopage of fuel on later date (like USA stopped for TARAPUR UNITS, canadian STOPPED FOR RAWTBHATA UNITS)


[C]. - Options for INDIA ?

OPTIONS with little or no foreign currancy OUTGO:

1) WIND mill with limitless energy
2) HYDRAL with limitless life span,
3) SOLAR with limitless life,
4) Municipal waste with limitless life,
5) Agriculture waste WITH LIMITLESS LIFE
6) COAL
7) GAS

OPTION WITH FOREIGN CURRANCY OUTGO:
1) NUCLEAR
2) PETROLEUM

[D] Why 50 - 60 years?

Now INDIA MAY SURVIVE with coal and gas, but after 60 years WIND, SOLAR, HYDRAL, WASTE cannot give sufficient energy for the INDUSTRY.

[E].- What is the option ?

INDIA SHALL USE NUCLEAR OPTION FOR ENERGY GENERATION

[F] What is about foreign currency, dependence?

1). SINCE 50 - 60 YEARS is long. INDIA SHALL EXPLORE IT'S 1800 KM by 2000 km land surface, 100 - 2000 km on sea bed to check if urenium can be extracted economically.
2) USA has formed NSG with 50 countries to deny access to nuclear fuel to countries like NDIA. World has 120 - 150 countries. INDIA can make an extensive search for URANIUM in the remaining POOR countries. It will help that POOR country for their economic unliftment and HELP india to gel fuel. But how does it stop the foreigncurrency outgo? Since these poor contries need is limited to " ROOTI-KAPDE-AUR-MOKAN", in which INDIA is strong enough; it can exchagne those goods with NUCLEAR FUEL ( if available). Since these poor countries does not have economical, technological capability, they will welcome help from INDIA.

[G]. Why this deal ?

If INDIA refused to this proposal, OPTION as in [F] above can not be materialised? Why? Since USA is WORLD DADA, it will influence other ( 125-50 = 75) countries not to allow INDIA for exercising OPTION [F]


[H].- Conclusion ?

INDIAN has no option but to sign the deal.