Dovid
Lv 4
Dovid asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

Agree or Disagree: The U.S.A. can make all of their electricity without using dangerous Neclear materials?

that can cause another nuclear disaster

like chernobyl 4\26\1986

or The Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster 3/20/2011

By using Solar energy in the Southern parts of the USA

and wind turbines in the northern parts of the USA

also the ebbing and surging of ocean tides can be used in order to produce electricity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/07/119645/will-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Disagree..........

    It's being increasingly realised in smaller countries such as the UK that Wind Power is useless & expensive, harms wildlife & ruins views (among other things), and still requires normal electricity generation methods to continually run to cover things when the wind drops to the point they don't work....... or when they have to be turned off because it's too windy, and it'll cause them to blow-up.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-13...

    So if it's not that great at producing electricity for smaller countries, it's gonna be a fat lot of good at doing so for larger countries with greater demand.

    There is minimal chance of a Chernobyl style nuclear accident happening in Western countries such as the USA........... Chernobyl was what's known as a "Graphite Cooled Nuclear Reactor", a design banned from use in the West for well over 50yrs (and well before Chernobyl happened) because even back then Scientists recognised them as too unstable, so don't even think about using that kind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and...

    The reactor in the Fukushima mishap was also of an older design, and exposed to an extreme weather event, and was also subject to a few design oversights in the safety department that newer design reactors don't have.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reac...

    Forget renewables........ the way to go is with THORIUM based nuclear reactors........... they are much, much safer........ could've been brought in much sooner, but certain governments told scientists thanks but no thanks because they needed the Plutonium out of the Uranium for weapons purposes at the same time.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambrose...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619...

    http://energyfromthorium.com/

    Quotes from one of the above articles on Thorium energy........

    " “The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

    “If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.

    “They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.” "

    "US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.

    The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner. "

    and from another.....

    "Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday - produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week. "

  • 9 years ago

    actually, i'd have to disagree...for many years now, a good chunk of our energy needs have been produced through nuclear means...but here's what no one is saying much about...all these solar ideas and wind turbins are far less effecient than nuclear power, and comparatively, the cost of power production is far higher than with nuclear power.

    and the maintenance factor starts kicking in, too, further increasing the negative difference...

    and as for safety, well, all the hoopla about nuclear safety is pretty much just that...hoopla...as with anything, there are safety factors to know and deal with, but it doesn't take a degree from barber school to know that nuclear power is clean and safe to a degree commensurate with and even superior too all other forms of energy production.

    okay, the fukushima thing happened, and there are some ramifications from it...of course, it's likely that most people have figured out that maybe you shouldn't put a reactor in some certain places...but we do learn, folks...and chernobyl was a tough thing, but it was mainly the russian 'coverup' push that actually let it get as bad as it did...

    hey, the truth is simple...it's good to keep on developing, learning new technologies...but now and for the foreseeable future, we need nuclear power, and a lot more of it...

  • Fossil fuels will become scarce within 20 years or so. When that happens, either something will take up the energy slack, or your standard of living will decline to 18th century level, or less. Solar power wouldn't do the job unless the USA had a national solar power system with panels equal in area to the state of Utah. (Actually, that must be just for transportation.) Wind and hydroelectric don't come even that close. So, once the fossil fuels are gone, it'll be nuclear or nothing. Vote for your choice.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Honestly, I don't know enough about the science of generating energy to truly know the answer to this... neither do 99% of anyone else who answers but watch out, they memorized something from a website. Suddenly they're experts.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Sure, if we go back to using kerosene lamps and coal heating for our houses, and just use an attic fan instead of air conditioning in the summer, turn off our big screen TV sets and computers, we could generate all the electricity we need with an Aeromotor windmill behind the barn.

    Source(s): http://aermotorwindmill.com/ The windmill that conquered the prarie.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Agree.

    We can use safe nuclear materials (and have been for 60 years).

  • 9 years ago

    Disagree. I'm tired of both Democrats and Republicans, all they want to do is tell people what they want to hear. We should be practicing conservation of all resources including energy. People must understand that energy is finite.

  • 9 years ago

    Yet NUKES get BIPARTISAN support in your governmnent.

    Too bad you call THAT DEMOCRACY and not something else!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.