Do you think Nuclear power plant can provide a solution for future energy?
- NukemannLv 51 decade agoBest Answer
Yes, I believe Nuclear is our best solution for the foreseeable future!
A diverse mix of power sources is necessary, but nuclear should play a much larger role, here are some pros and cons.
!. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin)
4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors.
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record.
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.
4. High cost of personnel.
5. Security concerns; terrorism, nuclear proliferation
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power. By the way a US Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier can go more than 20 years before refueling the reactor.Source(s): http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/default.aspx http://www.ne.doe.gov/ http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm http://www.posse.net/ne_benef.htm http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Community/WhatI... http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter1.html http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclea... http://www.nei.org/keyissues/ http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/ai...
- thinkerLv 41 decade ago
Although nuclear power can provide for the energy needs of the future, but it is not a "green" energy. The social cost we all have to pay in the future outweighs the benefits of nuclear plants / nuclear energy, taking the lessons from our past experiences with nuclear plant all over the world.
Alternatively, more R&D should be channeled into areas of wind, solar, & water energy generation. The key word here is alternative "green" energy. After all, we only have 1 earth and it is clear to all of us that polluting it further would only result in killing ourselves and our future generations. Only "green" energy guarantees our & future generations' continued existence on this one and only home we have; Earth.
As in all developments, initial development costs are high but as we develop and move towards "green" energy, there is invariably a tipping point where "green" energy becomes economically viable energy.
Furthermore, how can human kind trade-off the cost of developing clean energy against the known certainty of pure negative environmental effects of nuclear plants ?
There should not be a consideration of developing further nuclear power plants at all, in the face of certainty of the negative effects to the environment. "Green" and clean energy should be pursued as the future energy solution for the future.
- 1 decade ago
Nuclear power plants is worth it and it is a good solution for future energy. As we can see, one of the aircraft carrier belongs to U.S can go around the world without refueling for 1 year. This is a great news because of new source of energy but in the other way round we should see the radioactive waste that produce by this nuclear power plant. This kind of waste can be harm to human, animal, earth even ozone. It is too risky.
If we are prepared to heal the human, animal, earth even ozone from the radioactive, than we can welcome the new source of energy called NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.Source(s): National Geographic
- 1 decade ago
Yes, it do. But there is disadvantages to use nuclear energy. That is because will be a lot of the waste produced, whether it is fusion or fission. However, if the waste can be stored safely and not affecting all of the living things in the Earth, so it can be an absolute solution.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Half correct and half wrong.The reason I agree because nuclear power plant can help reduce the consumption of electricity that widely used by around the world nowadays.Besides,it also helps maintaining the safety record of the nuclear safety.
But we need to remember,the nuclear power plant costs a lot and they are need to reprocess as they are not domestically available.
- 1 decade ago
I think Chernobyl was believed to have been the Answer to this? How the great minds controlled and contained Chernobyl. Geniuses.
Maybe if we didn't have all these 'brain-washed' non thinking people blowing themselves up and all these delusional,power hungry,evil minded,self-serving,manipulating leaders,I wouldn't feel so incredibly wary. But right now? No.
WE need to stop being so wasteful and accept that we are using up,rotting and destroying the earth. We have taken it upon ourselves to play God and try to believe we can control nature and death. We need to accept the fact that we are at the mercy of everything around us and we cannot control all things.
Right now,we are in fear of something we cannot see a sub-microscopic virus and we can't control it. And someone thinks he can create/manipulate something as powerful as nuclear energy and control it? Nature can destroy that and bring it down.
- 1 decade ago
no, only the big powerful countries will be able to research and make nuclear energy, the smaller couturiers will be seen as a threat if they even do Research into nuclear energy, and will have sanctions put on them by the big consumers, such as iran
and also waste management will be a huge issue, most big nuclear energy companies may just end up dumping waste into local streams or rivers
- 1 decade ago
even the scientist whom written the formula for atom I mean AE is regretted what he have created.Human being tent to abused the use of this stuff.Let us make this world free from nuclear at any cost
Human kind are so genuis why not they find an alternative power scources like biofuel etc etc
- тαммιєLv 51 decade ago
I think that we should have a rainbow power plant. The plant could run on smiles, ponies, and cupcakes. Then, instead of evil smoke, cotton candy would fly out. Way better solution.
- JakrapongLv 51 decade ago
Yes, we can't avoid it. It's more productive in terms of cost. I think it is the way to go... we have to take some risk. However, we need to do "Zoning", put the plant far from human as much as we can. In the mean time, we should increase awareness of Wind, Solar energy as well.