Do you support building new nuclear power plants?

Question

I do.

Are you liberal or conservative?

It looks like an overwhelming yes. I wonder why our politicians don't realize this is needed?

Uncle Benito - I think the results here say otherwise.

Amos S - Great point. The USN has operated reactors for over forty years.

contrarycrow - Carbon sequestration has never been proven.

jimvalentinojr - We have deep oceans

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

I support building new Breeder reactors, more efficient with less waste, however I don't support it as a long term solution. Many studies indicate that we couldn't build enough to keep up with energy demands. We need to put more effort into other areas, particularly solar.

If new plants are made, however, I think the waste needs to be stored in the states that are benefiting from the power.

I'm more independent than anything else, though I do find myself leaning to the liberal side of things lately.

There are actually plans for many new Nuclear plants, the biggest problem is the initial costs, and finding a location where the state and local governments will allow it. Everyone wants it, just not in their back yard.

I've got a report here from the Department of Energy showing future estimates of energy needs that concludes that harnessing solar energy is really our only hope. Even with current technology, solar farms taking up a total space of 100 miles by 100 miles could supply the entire US. I'll see if I can find the report.

Answer 3

At this time, No.

I will only say Yes if the following conditions are met:

1) We found a way to safely recylce the toxic waste

2) A fail-proof prevention of a Nuclear meltdown

3) If Nuclear meltdown does happen, can we contain the contamination or are our personnels trained and ready to evacuate an entire city ? I don't trust FEMA sorry

4) The security in the facilities are tight to prevent terrorists from blowing it up.

Solar Panels and wind turbines are the source of alternative energy at the moment. Places like Las Vegas, Arizona, texas, california especially in hot climate could benefit from the solar panels in the desert and each individual houses, of course wind turbines.

Start building in those areas first then we talk nuclear.

Answer 4

I do. But it should be well-protected, and the nuclear waste should be taken care of properly.

Pros: No burning of fossil fuels, no CO2 or CO, or SO2 or NO2 emissions. Reliable, steady source of power. Uranium is a fairly common element, and is nearly as common as tin or germanium. There is enough uranium-238 (a more common isotope) in the earth to last for 5 billion years.

Cons: Security issues, and nuclear waste needs to be properly disposed of. Accidents can be very disastrous. Light water reactors are very inefficient, and uses the rare uranium-235. The more efficient breeder reactors are not yet commercially available.

Countries like France already use Nuclear power safely and they depend on it - 80% of their electrical energy comes from nuclear reactors. USA also has nuclear plants already, but unless they can find a safer, cleaner, more efficient source, nuclear power should not be taken off the table as an alternative power source. And reprocessing can recycle or recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel. Design changes can make nuclear plants safer and more efficient.

I am a libertarian.

Answer 5

No, we have other things we can do to generate power without using nuclear energy. I wouldn't mind the nuclear if the final product was safe but it is not safe at all. We need safe, clean, renewable and inexpensive energy. Wind, solar, geothermal are all natural as is hydrogen power. The latter a bit more expensive right now but with enough research can be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Answer 6

There is more to this question than just supporting nuclear power. There are related issues of plant safety, reliability, waste storage, etc that need to be addressed before we start building more plants. Also, I wonder if fission technology is the way to go. I'm not up on the latest in fusion research but if it's feasible, maybe we should focus our efforts on developing that technology. It would be cleaner and more efficient than fission.

Answer 7

No, we should only build OLD nuclear power plants.

I think the problems of nuclear waste and the hazards are too great. Solar-thermal power plants that use heliotropic mirrors can power the entire USA with no radioactive wastes, no meltdown hazards, and a much smaller cost.

The only reason to have nuclear power plants is breeder reactors for plutonium bombs. We have over 20,000 nuclear warheads in the USA now.

Answer 8

Yes! Good question. The reason we don't, the majority is bowing to the far left nuts. In all reality to days technology can be used for a safe practical use of nuclear power. Ex. Nuclear powered subs, carriers. These are small traveling cities. Lets not be afraid of 3 mile Island, Chernobyl. Technology has far surpassed this kind of mishap.

Answer 9

I can't believe the ignorance of all of these answerers. Only a few even touched on the nuclear waste issue.

First of all, that waste could pose a security risk. Think of what would happen if some nare-do-wells decided to go harvest it an detonate a dirty bomb.

Secondly, it poses a legitimate health risk. Long term storage (and we are talking 100s of 1000s of years here) is not a solution. What happens when these containers degrade? Nasty stuff.

Third, who said we are going to run out of solar and wind? Those are completely renewable. You can't run out of solar!! Idiot. Improving solar efficiency, storage capability, and reducing cost should be the number one priority for making our country energy independent. It is clean, renewable, and dependable. Of course there should also be research into wind, geothermal, tidal, techtonic, and hydrothermal sources.

Anything but coal, petroleum, or nuclear. These are neither renewable nor are they clean; two major issues when looking at sustainable energy.

EDIT: DEEP OCEANS?! Are you seriously suggesting that we bury the nuclear waste deep in the ocean??!! How would that affect the life at the bottom of the ocean, and then propagate that change as it were up each level? Our ecology is a balancing act, and each species depends on others for its survival. My seafood already has too much mercury in it, I don't want radiation in it as well.

Answer 10

If everyone in the UK bought a 3 second ketle, then 1 nuclear power station could be shut down.....

Think of what would happen if the whole of Europe, America, Russia, Japan, and China used one of these....

Any single one of those counries has a much bigger population than us in the UK....

The results would be amazing!

Answer 11

Conservative and absolutely. If you buy into global warming you should be as well. If you want cheaper gas in this country you should as well. There are very few good reasons to be against it and those can be addressed now with technology solutions