What's your opinion about nuclear energy?

Question

tell me your opinion!

Answer 1

I work in a nuclear propulsion/power plant on a submarine. I can tell you that there are definite benefits to nuclear power. There are risks though. The first answer said no one had died of nucler power and I have to disagree. The US Army had a reactor called SL-1. 3 young men died. One was pinned to the ceiling by a control rod. The other two died of complications from radiation poisoning. I don't know how many died due to Chernobyl, but to say no one has died is ignorant. In order to prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, you have to know all the facts. I believe that if a plant is operated with properly trained and qualified operators with proper procedures in place that it can be operated safely and efficiently.

Answer 2

A clean source of energy. Unfortunately it won't be used much in a nation of scientific illiterates and pressure groups who have not one iota of knowledge about nuclear physics.
After the accident at Three Mile Island, the background radiation 100 meters from the containment vessel was less than Denver on a sunny afternoon. And those readings were taken by Japanese scientists from a nation which has some understanding of what a nuclear weapon can do.
The accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine was in a graphite-cooled reactor. A type of reactor which is not used in any other parts of the world except for the Soviet Union and some of its satellite nations during the Cold War. That would include the reactor at Yongbyon in North Korea that has been in the news for so long.
The problem is with disposal of the waste products from the reactors. Yet, France seems to be able to reprocess that waste and send it back to Japan for use in their nuclear plants. Yes, Japan has nuclear plants.
For about five years I lived less than thirty miles from a nuclear reactor in California. None of my children or I glow in the dark. No birth defects in any of their off-spring either.
Now I live in an area of Southern Nevada where we have to import half of our electrical energy needs in the summer months. A nuclear reactor would do quite nice to reduce that dependency. Contrary to the "conventional wisdom" we get about 4 percent of the electricity generated by Hoover Dam.

Answer 3

I like nuclear energy, but I have reservations against wide spread usage. I feel it's the only way to beat a looming energy crisis.

Nobody has died directly isn't the same as nobody has died. Nuclear radiation, Chernobyl style, causes cell damage, which can lead to birth defects and cancer. It messes with the basic building blocks of life. It wouldn't show up in deaths at a cause stage, instead it would show in an increase in unusual diseases and cancers.

Three mile island wasn't even an accident on my scale, Chernobyl was.

I'm for nuclear, but the biggest argument I have against nuclear is the time for the material to become harmless. The half-life of this material is longer than the longest civilization has been around. It's pretty slim odds that the U.S. govt will survive to see the nuclear material we have now reduced to harmless radiation levels.

I would go with the nuclear option, but always keep in mind that our descendents will have to deal with the waste.

Answer 4

It's not all THAT safe, it's not really all that efficient and it's not really good for the environment... it just happens to be the best thing we have going right now.

Solar cells (Photovoltaic) are at best 20% efficient and the cost of the pure silica to reach 20% is VERY expensive... HOWEVER, the other night on History Channel... a show was saying how we could cover a 10 mile are in Nevada with collectors and that would produce enough electricity for the entire country!

Wind... how do you count on the wind?

Geothermal doesn't radiate enough heat/energy to be worth it

Any of the gases means we have to import it from some dune-coon country

What am I missing... Ah yes, nuclear waste. If we could educate people about food irradiation, we could have a useful outlet for at least SOME of the nuclear waste instead of sticking it in Yucca Mt and waiting... forever!

Answer 5

Nuclear energy is a clean non-renewable resource. Like it has been said France uses this as a primary means of power, and they supply almost 80% of the nations power. France has 59 reactors, and they reprocess the nuclear waste to extract fissionable materials so they can re-use them. What this does is reduce the amount of radioactive material that has to be sealed away somewhere. The US, which stopped reprocessing in 1977 has started back up again just recently.

The US has 104 reactors active, and they have not built any new ones since 1976.

Answer 6

Nuclear is the best thing going. If we are responsible, and have good security and competent people running the reactors, i think we have nothing to worry about.

Fact: More than 70% of France's Energy is Nuclear Based. They have had no mishaps, and prove that it works.

It would save our fossil fuels, and is VERY much more efficient than them.

Emphatic YES for Nuclear Power in the US.

Answer 7

Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer. Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement. I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard". I have confidence that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource or at least smart enough to handle it safely . If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now? Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner. Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of whats left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly base-load electrical power. Nuclear Energy is the only viable solution in the near term and the foreseeable future, to allow technological advancement and economic growth without environmental destruction. The power plant that I work at has every bit of fuel used to produce 500 Mw of power for 40 years safely stored in a 40'x40x40' pool. How many tons of coal ash would have been produced for that same energy production? How many tons of sulfur and carbon dioxide would have been released to the atmosphere? Know Nukes! By the way used fuel (high level waste) is a solid ceramic in steel fuel assemblies, not a liquid in a "tanker". You have many misconceptions, check out the links for the facts, it is sad that the people who would benifit the most from increased use of nuclear energy are so set against it.

Answer 8

Nuclear energy is a clean fuel that needs to be more implemented in today's society in the US.It is in our best interest to do so considering the state of world affairs. Unfortunately, politicians who say they love it actually don't and rather love the money they pocket from the oil companies that they invest in! They put a great spin on nuclear energy but it wouldn't fill their pockets. Don't believe it? Google some of our ilustrious politicians and you'll be surpirsed at what you find.

Answer 9

If you put the proper spin on it, disasters such as Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island can be made to appear as consequential mishaps with minimal consequences. The plants themselves can be passed off as safe and clean if you are able to overlook millions of tons of radioactive waste.
The main bi-product of nuclear energy is depleted uranium. The term depleted comes from the uranium having spent the useful amount of its energy for electrical generation. This does not mean it is a safe product. Depleted uranium is used to power weapons systems such as smart bombs and cluster bombs. While these are not to be considered nuclear weapons, the residue from their use is similar to dirty bombs.
Depending on the isotopes remaining in depleted uranium, the half life is well over one hundred thousand years. Some isotopes have a half life in the millions of years. Half life refers to the period of time a substance needs break down to half of its mass. For example, assume you have 1kg of material with a half life of 1000 years. In one thousand years, you would have half of the original material. A thousand years after that, you would again have half of that, so 1/4 of the original amount. You would never entirely reach a zero amount. So what happens if you keep adding to the pile at the rate we are?

Answer 10

Well it is really good source of energy... but most say it doesnt pollute... it does.. trust me... there is actually no effective way of getting rid of the Nuclear Waste.. besides.. people have died from it.. remeber the Chernobyl Nuclear Meltdown??