Nuclear power is the only realistic way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

I agree
39% (178 votes)
Definitely not
44% (197 votes)
Not sure
17% (76 votes)
Total votes: 451

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Perhaps our time would be

Perhaps our time would be better spent dealing with the waste products , ( other than putting them in a can and burying it in the ground) , rather than increasing production only to create a nuclear crock-pot for our children to sup on in the future.

Too bad you are basing your

Too bad you are basing your opinion on false assumptions. With proper reclamation systems (see France) the amount of waste that has to be dealt with through sequestration is minimal; less than a dump truck load per year.

Yes, I do have a degree in this area.

I am not a chemist but an

I am not a chemist but an environmentalist. I would like to make an analogy. In the pig farming business, a producer who would like to build a pig barn must complete several things including an environmental farm plan, a business plan and acquire all the necessary permits. He must show that X number of animals will produce Y amt of wsste and he MUST have signed agreements with everyone who will let him spread this waste on their land. And that is just for manure. Some may say that this is fairly benign but take a few moments and look up "Dead Zones" on the net. The Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River has been traced back to hog production and over application of manure in the states in the upper reaches of the Mississippi watershed, including ND, SD and Min. All that from a pile of manure.
Why did the nuclear industry have the opportunity to develop piles of nuclear waste BEFORE they had an acceptable plan for its disposal? The US has been looking at building a facility in Yucca Mountain. Look it up. It is not a suitable location. Initial assments were flawed, especially regarding moisture and seizmic activity. There is no place to put it, no container that will contain it permanently, and if this continues development will outpace current containment methods.
There is a wind farm a few miles from my home. The major environmental concerns is about 100 birds killed each year when they fly into the array. I do feel bad about the birds but given the choice between one hundred lost birds per year vs a growing pile of spent nuclear fuel, I am willing to sacrifice the birds.
The issue is actually quite simple. The fossil fuels available for human consumption are limited. If we continue on this path of consumption, we will live to see the day the last drop of oil is used. Why not develop options now, create communities that value sustainable environmental practices, including energy production.
As a cancer survivor, I also appreciate the value of nuclear medicine. Let's save the nasty stuff for curing man's worst ailment. that will create a much smaller pile world-wide than we are currently producing for all other purposes. And let's work with the developing countries that think nuclear energy is their best option. They should be learning from our mistakes.

Greatest source of energy is

Greatest source of energy is solar energy and we have the resources an the machinations to use it in place of fossal fuels.The problem is not the lack of safe energy but greed on the part of oil companies and the politicians who support their agender.

Sure oil companies are

Sure oil companies are greedy. EVERY corporation is greedy. That is by design and it is not a bad thing. The greed needs to be balanced by regulation and transparency (and, of course, an actively inquisitive public.)

However, the oil companies stay in business through the GREED of the individual. A greed for more and more enegery and lowest possible cost. So given the choice of a barrel full of liquid fossils (low capital expenditure) and lots of shade (high capital expenditure) the consumer is the source of the GREED that leaves us where we are.

Nuclear is another great option that irrational people are afraid of. This same group of know-nothings lobbies and spreads the unfounded fear to ensure that the US will never have the nuclear power capabilities that France has.

you might finish using

you might finish using nuclear energy!

were did you get this

were did you get this piture. it looks like it is off of a aname tv show. im not saying this to be mean but it dosnt look like any one here drew it. anyway it looks cool you should go to photobucket.com it has a bunch of pitures it has almost a piture of evrything.

anyway nuclear energy is

anyway nuclear energy is limited because the thing use to create it is uranium and uranium is limited

no way. Plutonium and

no way. Plutonium and Neptunium can be used too. Plutionium-239 and Neptunium-239 would work for the fission process.

Yet Np and Pu are made from

Yet Np and Pu are made from U.
Doesn't change anything.
still running out of U (and Pu and Np)

WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW [http://www.webelements.com/]

Copyright 1993-20010 Mark Winter [The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.