A recent survey conducted by Accenture has revealed that more than two-thirds of the world’s population believes that their countries should switch to nuclear power in lieu of using fossil fuels to generate electricity.
More than 10,000 people from 20 countries around the world participated in the survey, which brought up some surprising results. Around 29% of the participants supported outright the use of more nuclear power by their countries. 40% said that they had some concerns regarding widespread usage of nuclear energy, and would support it wholeheartedly if those were addressed. Again, 29% of the overall participants commented that they were more open to the idea of using nuclear power than they were even 3 years ago, whereas 19% commented just the opposite.
In times of peace they would be a good thing. But as you know these are not peacefull times So would you be happy with one in your neighbourhood The first attack if war broke out would be these sites. I wounder what would happen if one got hit by a bunker-buster missile that penetrated the core would it go nuclear ? Here's what we should follow, create a reactor that is the size of a cellphone that would run our homes and charge or electric cars for the rest of our lives . That way we could move away from fossil fuels, Breaking that monopoly isn't going to happen anytime soon. The real problems lye's with who controls our energy supply, eg oil coal and gas or the electronic technology that is not yet available to the public yet because the military still hold the patents and won't release them to the public so they can be developed by some of our younger scientists that are wasting their skills chasing the CO2 gravy train.. Cheers
This is a question that is as big today as it was at the end of WWII. Too bad that the world hasn't too much more the spirit it needs to answer it and answer it with a technology that brings treatise to both elements of its bearing. A double barreled shotgun with one barrel,and an empty barrel of spent nuclear fuel are possible , still, if you don't know what I mean.
There is no choice really, we have to go there some day, energy needs are increasing and always will, fossil fuels will some day run out and wind and solar are never going to be enough.
Nuclear reactors power things like aircraft carriers, submarines, the Russians are building nuclear powered icebreakers and they have a nuclear station in Siberia that runs district heating.
There are many types of nuclear reactors, they don't have to be big dangerous things like Chernobyl or Fukushima, or use uranium 235 and produce plutonium there are other more environmentally friendly ways like thorium.
The trillions spent on climate change would've been better spent on researching and developing safe and friendly nuclear power plants.
We have the knowledge, the science, the ability to do it, but politics and public opinion gets in the way.
Nuclear has lots of good points and very few bad. It can be safe and efficient. Unfortunately, the left in the US has made nuclear non viable with the Jane Fondas and trial lawyers. It became nearly impossible to build a plant as the rest of the world surpassed us. Fortunately, there is no reason to replace fossil fuels right now since there hasn't been any evidence of harm except from hysterical claims.
Nuclear power has the best safety record of any industry in history. Outside of the former Eastern block, no one has died because of radiation due to commercially nuclear power. We receive 300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
Some people may answer your question with outlandish claims about people dying because of the Fukushima incident. Such claims are total nonsense.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...
Some people say that renewable power could supply 80% of our needs by 2050. Even if it were true, that would not be a good reason not to use nuclear power. What about the mean time or the other 20% of our energy needs after 2050. Whether this energy is supplied by hydrocarbons or by nuclear power could be the difference in keeping temperature rise to below 2 degrees C.
I hate nuclear power. Absolutely hate it. It's an unsafe technology which we as people still do not fully understand and know how to harness, plus the byproduct is SO damaging, both environmentally and well, it can be used for weapons.
In college, I came in as an Aerospace Engineer and I took a class that had to deal with nuclear technology, and let me tell you, there was NOTHING good about it. I hated it and the people who were in that class were destructive and hateful human beings.
There are better forms of energy out there than nuclear. You have wind (turbine), solar (my personal favorite and shows the most promise), even geothermal sources. We just don't need nuclear at this moment in time, not without more research and understanding as much as some of us may THINK we know.
In short, I told myself I would never use my knowledge to harm another person, ever. So I left the program and became something better.
Well............ unfortunately we just threw away 8 long years with Baby Bush where we might have done something about power generation....... so actually we are stuck with nuclear power whether we want it or not.
My thoughts on using nuclear power...
Three Mile Island
Fukushima
Chernobyl.
I’m optimistic that soon we’ll have cracked the issue of nuclear fusion containment, it could be 20 to 30 years but when we do we’ll have virtually limitless power. Not only that, but unlike the current nuclear fission, there’s no radiation and the reaction is controllable. No threat of a meltdown, no potential terrorist threats, no radioactive waste etc.
One of the problems with fission reactors (the type in use at present) is that they’re often very expensive to set up, to operate and to decommission, it’s the radioactivity that makes them so expensive. To give you an example, here in the UK we’re engaged in a 50 year programme to dismantle redundant nuclear reactors (longer to dismantle than the time they were in use) and the cost is exorbitant, so far it’s about ￡3,500 / $6,000 on every household bill. This cost is over and above the price of the electricity itself.
The UK was the first country to go nuclear and is now decommissioning those old reactors, other countries will have to do likewise in the years to come. The US for example has 40 year licenses on its nuclear power plants, the average age is now 32 years. If the licenses don’t get extended then the US will be faced with a $650 billion decommissioning bill (UK = ￡70 billion / 19 reactors = ￡3.7 billion per reactor, US has 104 reactors at ￡3.7bn each = ￡400 billion / $650 billion).
Another problem is storage of the waste material. Despite having the longest track record on nuclear power generation, the UK hasn’t managed to dispose of any waste material, the entire lot is stockpiled and no-one knows what to do with it.
Personally I’m not a big fan of wind-farms (I think they’re unsightly) and would prefer to see money being invested in fusion technology so as to advance the time when this becomes available. Theoretically it should also be able to supply all the energy demands of the poorer countries and help lift them out of poverty; whether this will happen remains to be seen.
I wouldn’t favour extending the current fission programme but would welcome the advent of fusion. As a stop-gap measure I would like to see greater use of renewables such as wind, solar, tidal etc with these subsequently being phased out if/when fusion become available and more economically viable.
It is a great idea. Many of our submarines have run on nuclear power since the 50s, and done so safely. The only problem is that governments could misuse it. I have more fear of the government than that of nuclear power.
