if no why?
2007-12-16 02:34:33 · 17 answers · asked by Pedro G 2 in Environment ➔ Green Living
yes it should
p.s. good question !
2007-12-16 02:37:36 · answer #1 · answered by Julia K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! Just to build the power plant is energetically inadequate, to keep the used uranium material for thousands of years in a safe way is energetically consuming and has not been fully tested (and no one wants to have such a site next door) and there are other ways to harness/generate energy. Sustainable living is possible, with all the technology and know-how available today the only objections we have is insufficient government backing. Free solar packs for everyone do not sound good to ears of massive energy producers... Not mentioning that double glazing should be requested by law... Away with silly conservation area building regulations!
2007-12-16 03:09:40 · answer #2 · answered by hannaf007 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no ....we have already proven the use of solar energy with solar panels and some people run their entire homes from them...so instead of use using nuclear power or always being plugged into a power plant...lets take those sub stations and all the towers span out across our country and put solar panels on them...but all the bushies wont let you...imagine if we found alternates to coal ,,oil ,,gasolines..we would cripple the rich..so do you think they would let that happen...get real
2007-12-16 02:42:19 · answer #3 · answered by chriseads2 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is cheaper, cleaner, and far more effective than fossil fuels. France is almost exclusively nuclear powered and they have had no problems with it.
Naturally, security needs to be ratcheted up, but that is something we need more of anyway.
2007-12-16 02:40:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
it's too costly, the waste is difficult to get rid of and dangerous. There are cleaner ways (environmentally, not as in the air because the only gas given off is hydrogen and water vapour) and they aren't the prettyest things in the world now are they
2007-12-16 02:37:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it should one of the major sources but there needs to be a public debate about safety particularly the issue of potential terrorist activity
2007-12-16 02:56:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, wind and solar energy are cheaper and better for our environment than nuclear energy.
2007-12-16 02:45:50 · answer #7 · answered by big sir 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, b'cos it create environment problem which ultimately affects human health especially small children. It also produce many harmful gases which can lead to dead and many disease which can't be cure.
2007-12-16 02:44:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, still using depletable resources. Also creates hazardous waste.
2007-12-16 02:43:05 · answer #9 · answered by smittybo20 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no absolutely not
its too dangerous to our planet
i support wind and sun and water power
here in massachusetts usa
2007-12-16 03:55:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. 'Nuf said.
2007-12-16 02:38:25 · answer #11 · answered by Snow Flake 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋