Nuclear power! For or against?
I know a lot of people are terrified of nuclear power even though it is, in fact, clean. It's much cleaner than coal. The way France does it is very proficient. They recycle 96 percent of their nuclear power and re-use the uranium. The other 4 percent is kept under cooling pools underneath the plant. Nuclear power plants also have tight security. I've been to one before. They have guards with AK-47, metal detectors, and snipers everywhere. It's about as tight as a maximum security federal prison. No terrorist would be able to get near. Nobody like Homer Simpson could work there either. You have to be screened and have clearance to work there. Coal-burning is far more detrimental to the environment than nuclear power. Are you in favor of or against nuclear power?
Chernobly happened for many reasons. First of all that plant didn't have a proper cooling system. Second, the Russians didn't have a containment building there. Third, the guy in charge was running on fumes. He hadn't slept in two days. The Russians did a million things wrong. Nothing major happened from Three Mile Island either. The reactor went down. Do you have any idea how thick the walls are in a containment building? They're at least 5 feet thick. They're like bomb shelters. Even if you detonated an atomic bomb outside the containment building, they wouldn't breech.
- michael wLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Far more coal miners are killed every year than deaths from nuclear power plants. The world needs electricity and nuclear power stations are the cleanest way of providing it. Wind power produces little electricity and power provided by water power are few and far between. Until mankind can find another alternative solution nuclear power is the best we have.
- 1 decade ago
I'm all for nuclear power, we will inevitably use nuclear in the future, as coal will be too expensive (as its supply dwindles in 500 years!) no matter what we will be forced to use it, whether we like it or not. But it is safe, clean and the technology is well proven today, the nuclear waste in the past can be reprocessed in breeder style reactors enhancing the life of nuclear fuel to billions of years (yes billions, look it up!!).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Nuclear power is perfectly safe. The chances of having a meltdown are astronomical. The "smoke" you see coming out of them is just steam. It doesn't harm the environment at all. The only thing is that they have to get rid of the nuclear waste, but there's a mountain in Nevada and a few other locations where they dispense it cleanly and safely. Also, like you said, there's a very low chance of terrorists accessing a nuclear power plant.
What I'm saying is that nuclear reactors and nuclear power is safe and fine for the environment.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It's hard to imagine how you could be much righter.
No Western plant is built on the Chernobyl model. Still, as power generation goes, Chernobyl has killed far fewer people per gigawatt than any non-nuclear alternative. Three Mile Island, Rancho Seco & Diablo Canyon as well as ALL the other non-Soviet nuclear plants in the world (and there are hundreds ship-board alone) collectively have a 100% failure to ever do anyone any harm. So yes, be afraid, be very afraid, if you insist. Just don't call your fear rational.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- realst1Lv 71 decade ago
Against. Nuclear power is so inherently dangerous the facilities cannot be insured and neither can your home be insured against nuclear disaster. France may use it but that is their business, the waste is highly toxic for thousands of years.
The USA has huge expanses of land where we could use wind power, large areas with almost constant sunlight, so wind and sun and the clean electric energy we get from them could power our nation without fossil fuel or dangerous and EXPENSIVE nuclear power.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Nuclear power in not safe. Remember Chernobel? Remember Three Mile Island? Remember Rancho Seco? Remember Diablo Canyon?
They built them...building them is an "industry" in itself. But the public closed them down out of FEAR. Justifiable FEAR.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
guards yes, Ak-47's no, snipers no.
It's cleaner though it's Very VERY Expensive to maintain and to even build a plant.
i'm for it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Think about it... Here are the Pros and cons of Nuclear Power
As a result of the current discussion how further global warming could be prevented or at least mitigated, the revival of nuclear power seems to be in everybody's - or at least in many politician's - mind. It it interesting to see that in many suggestions to mitigate global warming, the focus is put on the advantages of nuclear power generation, its disadvantages are rarely mentioned.
Hopefully, the following summary of arguments for and against nuclear power can fill this gap:
Advantages of nuclear power generation:
Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of green house gases and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little.
This technology is readily available, it does not have to be developed first.
It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant.
Disadvantages of nuclear power generation:
The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.
Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.
During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Is nuclear power renewable energy?
Nuclear energy uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand). Therefore nuclear energy is not a renewable energy.
From the above mentioned pros and cons of nuclear power plants, it should be evident that nuclear energy cannot be a solution to any problem. Even worse: it is the source of many further problems.
We must not any longer shut our eyes to the consequences of our being on earth. Besides moral, ethical and spiritual reasons, at least for the pure will to survive we should consequently strive for a sustainable living and realize it in our personal life. It's time for change!
The actual interests of the energy industry in nuclear power
Generally speaking, the electrical energy industry is aware of the substantial drawbacks of nuclear power generation. Nevertheless this industry is now spending an incredible amount of money and time, lobbying for the revival of nuclear energy. The main interest of the owners of existing nuclear power plants is however to prolong the life-span for existing nuclear plants. Because the existing plants will be amortised at the end of their originally planned life time, huge financial profits can be realised for any day longer which these plants can be kept in operation. This is much more lucrative than building new nuclear plants!
However, to operate nu
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
totally against. with solar wind and water power we should not need this horribly dangerous source of energy at all.