I am against nuclear power as I there is a natural disaster it could destroy the whole countr with radiation
You what I love? That when germany and japan announced that they'll go cold turkey on nuclear power over "concerns" over the environment, coal and oil use rocketed in those countries since then. So much for environmentalism.
Nuclear power isn't perfect. The mining and refining process for uraniuam is dirty, and the problem of nuclear waste still hasn't been solved, but it's a utopia compared to coal. (When in the hands of responsible and well trained people of course). It's not a complete solution. But it's a temporary middle ground for a way to clean energy.
Even if it's not worth expanding nuclear power, getting rid of it is a complete step backwards in the direction we want to be going. It's been said that for every nuclear power plant environmentalists stop, they end up building 2 coal plants in that plants place.
Perhaps one day, once the storage problem is solved, renewables may be able to meet all of our energy needs. But, if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to rely on renewables has two problems.
1. The storage problem has yet to be solved. There are ideas out there, like batteries, flywheels, hydrogen and pumping water up to reservoirs, but these ideas all need work.
2. It will take a long time to develop the infrastructure to supply all of our energy needs with renewable energy, even after the storage problem is solved.
For these two reasons, only some of our energy can be supplied by solar and wind power for the next 20 to 50 years. Hydro and geothermal can take up some of the remainder, but, like it or not, the alternatives to nuclear power are not solar and wind, or even hydro and geothermal. The alternatives to nuclear power are natural gas and coal. Contrary to what many fearmongers say, nuclear power is safe. We receive 300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
Natural gas and coal more harmful than nuclear power
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs...
i live in northern illinois. 50% of our state electrical grid power is provided by 2nd generation nuclear power plants. the only major issue with nuclear power is the fanatical green folks crying " end of the world" for siting nuc plants in populated areas. other than that, we have a very clean, dependable power source. the reactors have been successfully providing power for thirty years. occasionally the wind farms in illinois don,t work, as the wind stops . then we burn coal to fill the energy demand gap. i,d rather have nuc plants than coal fired power plants. the biggest enemy of nuclear power is fear. the reality is quite different. if the japanese at fukushima had simply put the back up generation system within walls; they would be just fine.
nuclear power stations induce energy from a nucleus. That nucleus being from the most common element called Uranium. Unlike power plants that burn coal which is a fossil fuel which leads to globabl warming.... Nuclear power stations dont BURN anything. they just establish nucleuses in a 'chain reaction'. where more and more nucleuses mutate and doubles and doubles whilst giving out TONS of energy. nuclear is a clean process. But it is extremely expensive to build and it would take a long time to make the nuclear reactor and apparatus... they need to be patient. :)
My view is, if we have a few we might as well have a few more.
"Green" solutions can often be more problematic, e.g. the large wind-farms off the East Anglian coast destroy large swathes of sea bed and kill thousands of migrating birds such as lesser black-backed gulls.
Like most people nuclear makes me a bit uncomfortable but unless people and industry is willing to pay for truly sustainable energy or use less power then I think it is a good option.
Urgently
Yes. It's the only way we have to produce large amounts of energy and do it with relatively little waste and little CO2 production.
Don't know if we need more. I live next to hunterson power station and 40 miles away there is hippys protesting against faslane everyday. We could do with less of them
i think we should keep the nuclear stuff....think about it, if we have nuclear power/ weapons and fuel, no one will mess with us! if someone has a war, we nuke the **** out of there family and friends.... YoloSwagginz *hashtag*, goml, obey,
Only when it can match the price of the other systems. Don't hitch it onto the defunct global warming scandal. Stick with science, integrity and the free market.
Or it should get rid off the whole nuclear activities.
I would say yes because they can have more energy like electricity.
Take a look at France. You'll decide the answer is yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electr...
Yes - the sooner the better.
I think we should get rid of them
Put me down as a "Yes".
We need more low carbon energy, but please, lets build them ourselves, not leave it to the french!
