What are your thoughts on the U.S. turning to nuclear power plants for our energy needs?

Answer 1

Well. there is no denying we need a clearer energy source.
If we think oil is a problem now, just wait 20 years. It’ll be a nightmare.
Dependence on nuclear power persists despite the possibility of disasters, such as that experienced in 1986 at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. New Scientist reports that “America’s existing reactors are being plagued by cracks and corrosion” and the famous, the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio “came close to a catastrophic meltdown” as a result of corrosion problems. since than we have several other near disasters.
Given the limited supply of and inherent dangers in existing energy sources, the question arises, Is mankind doomed to ruin the earth in their quest to feed their seemingly insatiable thirst for energy? It is obvious that we need clean, reliable alternatives. Are such alternatives both available and affordable?
The environmental benefits of adopting cleaner energy sources are obvious. However, the cost of doing so on a large scale is likely to remain prohibitive.

My personal thoughts Count, I hate to see it. I would like to see more Natural Energy (harnessing the wind and such). But being realistic I doubt that will happen as it doesn't fulfill our wants now.
Industrial progress was meant to make our lives easier. In some ways it has. However, it is this very "progress" that aggravates the earth's environmental problems. We appreciate the inventions and advancements that industry has presented to us, but the very production of these and our use of them have often resulted in ruining parts of our world.
An example of this is motor vehicle.

Those are my thoughts given a choice I would say no. But I don't know how that will affect the economy or lives now. I only know for the future it is better. I go for long term benefits when possible instead of satisfie me now views.

Answer 2

I'm a greenie and am all for the US building new nuclear power plants.

However, I have one concern. How are we going to protect the new and existing ones from terrorist attacks by airliners?

Upon intense interrogation al Qaeda's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said that they weren't ready "at this point" to attack US nuke plants. They were obviously after US economic and government symbols.

If al Qaeda had targeted one of the many easy nuclear power plant targets in the Northeast on 9/11, the radiation fallout would have made most of that area uninhabitable for generations. The US would be reduced to an agrarian nation ruled by tribes.

Answer 3

The US should go to nuclear power as soon as possible. It is clean and will cut our dependence on oil. Look at all the nuclear ships the Navy has now without an incident.

Answer 4

I think it's a good idea. BUT I remember growing up (near Shoreham Nuclear Plant) there were many leak scares.

If the Government could find a way to do it without screwing it up, I'm all for it.

Answer 5

I have been a nuclear physicist for 32 years. I have operated nuclear reactors on board submarines, at training facilities, large commercial power plants, and medical research facilities. And in all that time, the one common denominator that I have seen that would even bring into question about enhancing the US's nuclear production capability is greed. Greed in the utilities that own them, greed in the contractors that build them, greed in the companies that support them and greed in the government agencies that oversee them.

Answer 6

its a great idea. The reason we dont is because there was a plant that had a meltdown years and years ago, but technology has advanced and there are nuclear power plants currently operating in teh united states. And seeing as we are one of the only countries that are still dependant on fossil fuels, we need to change this pronto.

Answer 7

Nuclear plants are too expensive to be practical. It costs billions to make one, it costs billions to disassemble one, they are all terrorist targets, they can contaminate an entire state if there's a disaster (google "pripyat") and the nuclear waste is expensive to store. Also the amount of low level waste produced is obscene, and frankly we don't know how to get rid of it especially the radioactive water, which is a huge issue.

Answer 8

Good idea. Nuclear energy is required to move America into a "hydrogen economy".

Fact Sheet: Promoting Energy Independence and Security
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050427-9.html

A "hydrogen economy" is required to eliminate our growing dependence on foreign oil.

Hydrogen fuelled cars use something called a fuel cell. Fuel cells generate electricity from hydrogen. The electricity generated from the fuel cell is used to power the car. Fuel cells emit pure drinkable water instead of "greenhouse gases" like engines do.

Hydrogen is created using a process called electrolysis. Electrolysis is basically splitting up the water(H2O) into both hydrogen and oxygen by the use of electricity. There are other ways to generate hydrogen, but the extraction from water is the cheapest and most effective way. The use of electricity or heat from nuclear reactors are the most inexpensive and effective ways to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. And during off peak hours, idle nuclear reactors can be generating hydrogen for use in fuel cells inside of cars.

New technology allows hydrogen to be stored safely without the risk of explosion. In many ways, hydrogen is already far less dangerous to store than gasoline.

Another answerer mentioned solar power and wind power. Both are a waste of time. It is impracticle to use either one to power all of the cars in the U.S.. It would take countless thousands of wind mills to generate enough electricity to power all of the cars in the U.S.. And solar cells are a waste of time and energy for the generation of hydrogen. Hundreds of square miles of land would have to be covered with solar cells just to generate enough electricity to power the cars for one large state. Also, solar cells would need to be changed after X number of years since solar cells become less and less efficient each year they are used. Another thing, most people fail to know that it requires a lot of energy to just to make solar cells.

Answer 9

Neculear Power stations give out one heck of a lot of energy but the problem is getting rid of the waste it exhumes and the sheer dangers of running the damn thing!

Answer 10

I believe it is time for a serious discussion on nuclear power in the U.S. Oil will not last forever.