Do you believe that nuclear power is our future as a nation?

can we really be okay with the despose of our waste in Yucca Mountain or is anyone else scared that we will have an other falling out like chernobyl or three mile island?





if you dont believe nuclear power is our future then what is in your eyes?

Do you believe that nuclear power is our future as a nation?
to be honest i kind of do because were basically living in a bablyon because our days our number its only of matter of time before we get hit with something because were getting into it with china we owe them alot of money were at war and russia is knowned to have the most poweful nuculear missle and u tell me why they have it. and since were at war just think if iraq nem was over here kicking down doors and so on what would america would do we would fight back so there going to do the same and they going to start in the middle of united states and you know where that is missouri
Reply:When we dispose of radioactive waste, it's supposed to stay where it is for 100,000 years and we think that it will stay there because among other things, it's put in a geological area that's hundreds of millions of years old. Even if it leaks out after a couple of hundred years (which is almost inconceivable), it will probably be ok as the radiation will have died down a bit by then and Chernobyl is supposedly going to be habitable in a couple of hundred years.





Nuclear power is safe clean and expensive. If we all don't mind paying a bit more for power, then we can go nuclear. Otherwise coal or gas is the cheapest power.
Reply:Of course not, I don't believe the promises given by the nuclear industry claiming the cheapness of nuclear energy and how there are no CO2 elements emitted. Actually, the prices of nuclear fuel reactors (to construct and maintain) are several times the amount it takes to use traditional fuel/oil. Government subsidies help to make nuclear energy slightly cheaper. Pertaining to radiation and harm to the environment, nuclear fuel emitts three basic types of radiation and many radioactive elements like Iodine 131 that are harmful to the environment and ecosystem and stay radioactive for thousands of years. Plus, a nuclear reactor meltdown could release myriad carcinogenic (inducing cancer or cancer cells) and mutagenic radioactive elements into the human body and ecosystem for hundreds of generations.





I believe that possible sources of energy in the future are renewable resources like solar power, wind power, or tidal power. Also, during the transition to renewable elements, biomass or cogeneration of fuels can be persued to temporarily reduce global warming.
Reply:Nuclear may or may not be in our future. That is for the people and or instead the powerful interests that be to decide. My preference however is no.





Nuclear is dangerous, takes a long time a precious resources to build, and has no good solution to dispose of the waste.





The solution is simple. An interconnected network of alternative energies. In fact according to Bill McKibben's book Deep Ecology if every home and business put solar panels on their roofs it could power 3/4 of all our current energy uses. Coupled by the fact that we already consume vastly more energy than any other country in the world industrial or otherwise all we need to do is cut back our usage a bit and the problem is solved.





Connect all these units into a universal grid so that some customers are paying and others being paid for their excess energy production. This puts the power in the peoples hands and not locked into an oligarchy system of oppression and dependence.





All this of course could be supplemented with wind, wave, geothermal, hydro-electric, and other clean technologies. These too could be jacked into the universal grid giving alternate power when some systems are producing less.





Finally by building more efficient cars (plug in electric hybrids) and homes (i.e. in ground, stays a stable 56 degrees) we would need very little extra production. The global warming crisis would eventually abate and food prices would stabilize. People would have more money from less spending on energy and more jobs created from new technology industries.





It's a nice dream anyway. one I will work to make happen if possible.
Reply:Nuclear may be needed in the short term, but the future is solar. In the not so distant future (next few years) the cost of PV modules will half or possibly quarter. At $1.00 per watt, this will be a very attractive option on new homes, as well as an affordable retro fit on existing homes and buildings. By 2015, costs may fall as low as 50 cents per watt.





Currently, efficiencies are low, below 20%, the current record is about 42%. I would think over the next decade, an average of 25% could be achieved. We'll see. I'll be installing mine in 2010.
Reply:Nuclear is one part of the mix and it will become more prevalent. The capital costs are high but it is virtually pollution-free and the incremental costs are low. At the end of the day, though, there is now such thing as "one best way" for anything. We have enough cheap oil for at least another century and there's enough coal in the ground for several centuries beyond that. Solar and wind will never be more than a boutique energy source best suited for remote "off the grid" locations because the amount of energy they provide is extremely limited, and biofuels are a non-starter because their production uses more energy than they deliver.
Reply:Nuclear power is the only way to go, three mile island was before, cell phone, lap tops, deck tops, text messages, x boxes on and on and on. The tech has improved a billion percent.
Reply:The half-life of iodine 131 is just over 8 days......not thousands of years.








Thats an example of the superstitions and mythology being used to delay the inevitable construction of nuke plants.
Reply:It sounds like U.S. will expand nuclear power,. considerably.....