do the negatives of nuclear power outweight the good?

Question

nuclear energy has both benefits and dangers. But it seems throughout history more has gone wrong with nuclear power than right. Should we even use nuclear power? Shouldn't we instead put forth efforts to find alternate powersources?

Answer 1

Nuclear Power is one of the alternate energy sources. Also, Nuclear energy is very safe. In the past 60 years, there have been only two nuclear meltdowns, 1) 3 mile island in the US and 2) Chernobyl in USSR. Furthermore, today's IAEA safeguards are leaps and bounds ahead of those used in the past making nuclear power even more safe. We have to use more nuclear power because it is economically sound. A good mix of nuclear power in a nation's energy repertoire will protect that nation and its economy from the damages of fluctuating oil prices. Look at France (and I never say this since I am not a fan of the French), 80% of their electricity production comes from Nuclear Power and they have had no significant nuclear mishaps. During the Tsunami, the nuclear power plants in Chennai were under threat but due to the existing safeguards, they were immediately shut off and there was no damage done. So the way I see it, the benifits of nuclear power clearly outweigh the risks and more naitons should be encouraged to used albeit in a responsible and safe manner under the auspecies of IAEA safeguards.

Answer 2

Whether or not nuclear power is clean, the potential damage that could come from a meltdown is ridiculous. It really doesn't matter how rare a nuclear accident actually is, we're gambling with more than just lives. If just one plant fails, the surrounding area could see consequences that last for years.

Answer 3

Alternative power sources have their dangers, too. A few days ago, someone died in a road accident in Scotland because a big wind turbine fell off its transporter lorry. When you add up all the fatalities and injuries HONESTLY, and adjust them relative to the amount of power being generated, nuclear is no worse than the other equally green power sources.

Unfortunately, there is not just a lot of public mis-perception of the relative risks, there are also a lot of people treating nuclear power as a political football, and pandering to the public by over-emphasising its costs and under-stating the costs of alternatives. These people are more interested in their own personal future than in the world's. They are very very dangerous people.

Answer 4

A LOT has gone right. There are only RARE examples of things going wrong - and engineers have learned from those mistakes. Name even one MAJOR event in the last ten years in Europe or the U.S. I don't know of any.

A comparison with the dangers of the automobile may be enlightening. In the U.S, 43,000 men, women and children die EVERY YEAR in car crashes and millions are injured (hundreds of thousands live with permanent injuries every year!). So, every decade nearly 1/2 MILLION Americans die and millions are permanently maimed in car accidents. Should we discontinue the use of the automobile? Or, do the benefits out way the risks?

Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest form of high-volume energy production available today and for the foreseeable future.

Answer 5

Nuclear reactors are very costly to construct. 2 below constract in Fla precise now will value $17B. this is unquestionably 4 circumstances what equivalent coal flora could value. additionally the coverage on Nukes is extremely, very costly as is the learning for the staff and protection. The gas is plenty inexpensive than coal. there's a disposal venture with the waste. And, besides the undeniable fact that Nukes have for the main section shown to be risk-free, a Chernobyl like soften down in a tightly packed section like la or Germany could be an unbeleivable disaster. i think of the international is at an advantage construction extra nat gas and coal powered flora. FYI.. the U. S. already has 104 nuclear ability flora that's the main interior the international. France is 2d with fifty 9. One opponent to the flora being inbuilt Florida calculated that the state ought to save as plenty ability as those flora could furnish for 0.5 the money by making use of in basic terms changing everyones ineficient warm water heaters with instant on warm water and by making use of offering all public homes with photograph voltaic electrical energy. a lot of human beings discover nuclear to be a perfect theory till they are shown the value ticket of creating and working nuclear ability flora.

Answer 6

Wow, that last guy likes to make stuff up. As an employee at a facility that enriches uranium in the U.S., I can assure you that we employ safety measures to prevent contamination to employees and members of the public. In fact, in every part of the fuel cycle process, safety measures are employed to ensure employees and members of the public are kept safe. I can't speak to the mining process, but a few thousand spoiled acres is trivial compared to the land destroyed by hydro power, or needed for wind turbines or solar panels.

The fact of the matter is that to produce base load electric power that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the so called "alternative power" sources can't compete. The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't blow all day. Geothermal power is only appropriate in certain areas that are volcanically active. Hydro is maxed out with available rivers in the U.S. already dammed. The so-called "hydrogen economy" requires four times as much energy to create the hydrogen gas as that material provides in end power. Where is that power going to come from?

Plenty of research effort is going into "alternate power sources". Do some searches on the U.S. federal budget for the Department of Energy and find out how many millions of dollars are being thrown at more efficient solar panels, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, putting solar panels on roofs, subsidies (at both the state and federal level) for wind generated power. Then compare the amount of actual kilowatts of power that have been generated by those "alternative" sources. As a tax payer I can't believe we continue to throw good money away on this expensive crap.

So, to address the original question, of course the ability to produce 20% of the U.S. power needs using nuclear power far outweighs any perceived negative. No one has ever died as a result of the commercial nuclear power industry in the U.S. The few dozen people who died as a result of Chernobyl is a tragedy, but frankly pale in comparison to the thousands that die each year in coal mines all over the world.

Mankind needs base load electrical power. Our options are coal, hydro, and nuclear. That's it, that's all.

Answer 7

Anybody who thinks nuclear power is clean, good for the environment and is non toxic to humans should wake up from their little dream and get educated. The nuclear power stations are a ticking time bomb. Lets start at the beginning.
Where does the materials come from to make nuclear power? From mining yellow cake (uranium ore). Mining yellow cake is one of the worlds most hazardous longterm jobs on the planet. Underground mining of the substance releases pockets of Radon gas. Radon gas causes cancer. (see Madam Curie)
Whilst min ing the toxic substances, either open cut or tunnel mining, you are exposed from a minimum four times normal background radiation, up to twenty times normal.
The ore millers, who refine the yellow cake, are subjected to up to 1000 (one thousand) times normal background radiation. The mining and refining of ore is a dusty and toxic process which also includes the use of huge quantities of other toxic substances including (and not restricted to) sulphuric acid, ammonia gas, nitrogen oxides, raffenates and liquors. The area needed for the processing of uranium is many thousands of acres if you include the tailings evaporation dams.
At one particular site in Australia, a site which is in a desolate,regional area, native wildlife are drawn to the evaporation ponds and die from A) drinking the poisoned toxic waste or B) are scalded to death when landing in what looks like a lake, but is in fact a shallow evaporation pond that may be upwards of 150 degrees farenheit. Entire flocks of migrating birds have died in this fashion (this is not restricted to just uranium mining, this is a product of most hydro-metallurgical processing practises).
Now we have a low grade uranium ore. We have just laid to waste a 10,000 acre (minimum) piece of the environment for the next 1,000 years. Lets move on to the next process.

Uranium enrichment.
Most of the 470 commercial nuclear power reactors operating or under construction in the world today require uranium 'enriched' in the U-235 isotope for their fuel.
Two commercial processes are employed for this enrichment. Another process based on laser excitation is under development in Australia and USA.
Prior to enrichment, uranium oxide must be converted to a fluoride.(uranium hexafluoride (UF6))
Workers in this process are subjected to background radiation 1,000 times more than average background radiation. The plants, again, use other toxic and dangerous chemicals and solvents to prcess the yellow cake into a usable product in nuclear power stations, x-ray machines and radio-active isotopes for the medical industry. (Chemotherapy is one one of the best tools we have for fighting cancers, but it has a very toxic manufacturing process and is also very toxic to the person being treated.).
If inhaled or ingested, however, its radioactivity poses increased risks of lung cancer and bone cancer. Uranium is also chemically toxic at high concentrations and can cause damage to internal organs, notably the kidneys. Animal studies suggest that uranium may affect reproduction, the developing fetus, and increase the risk of leukemia and soft tissue cancers.

In getting the ore out of the ground and processed to a point where it can be used as a fuel, we have contaminated many acres of land in mining and processing, exposed many hundreds of workers to the effects of increased radio-activity, transported the materials through towns, cities and ports where there is the eventual likelihood of a spill and possible contamination of a residential area, and created a toxic waste that will be a hazard for tens of thousands of years.
All that before we put it into a reactor to make power. Wake up humans. There are viable alternatives that do not require the ongoing raping of our natural resourses, the polluting of our natural environment, and the killing of our selves and our children by exposure to toxic elements.

So, you tell me, do the negatives of uranium energy out way the risks?

The alternatives are, Hydro power generation, wind generators, wave generators, solar power and probably the most realistic of all is geo-thermal power.
According to Iceland's President Grimsson, Iceland has “turned this [geothermal power production] into an extremely profitable business.” For example, electricity is so inexpensive in Iceland that there is a booming business on the island that imports bauxite from the Caribbean area for the purposes of refining aluminum, a highly energy-intensive process.

If people still believe that nuclear power is the answer, then they are living in the mid tewntieth century and still have not come to grips that we are now into the twenty first century. People need to be educated on the new technologies. Lets not get stuck with the dangers of past technologies. Nuclear power is NOT green.

Answer 8

Depends on how cold you are?