what does everbody think about nuclear energy and nuclear power plants? http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/nukerelapse.htm The Bush Administration just OK'd the building of new nuclear power plants, after 20 some years of not having any new ones... all this after we have been on Iran's case about THEIR nuclear activities. personally nuclear power plants creep me out. i live about 200 miles from one, but i have driven past it a few times. everytime i get within about 5 miles of it, my ears start ringing, and the radio in my car gets bad reception as i drive past it. there's just not something normal about that..... i am definitely not looking forward to more of these being built, with more toxic waste to deal with and more potential for nuclear meltdowns..... if you are within 200 miles from a plant that has a meltdown, depending on the wind direction, you can expect to get a lot of radiation particles coming your way. i really don't care how some people say they are "clean" because they aren't considering the toxic waste, which has a half life of something like a billion years. in other words, the toxic waste doesn't decompose, it has to be stored indefinitely away from civilization. and there's always the chance that it can seep into the ground and contaminate the water table, etc. what are everyone's thoughts about nuclear power and what Bush is doing? further reading: http://www.projectcensored.org/publ...ns/2005/10.html http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_...es.cfm?ID=10389 __________________
Our problems with Iran's nuclear activities don't have anything to do with a cvilian nuclear power program. They're about a nation which declares it's purpose to be the destruction of it's neighbors refining uranium. This is intensified by not allowing IAEA inspectors in to monitor their construction of technology which they don't nessecarily have the ability to build saftley. Your radio will likely get bad reception near any power plant. I'm very glad we're switching to more nuclear power. It's much cleaner, and only produces waste as nuclear sludge, which can be recycled to make more energy. Coal and gas plants emit much more radioactice waste right into the air. Nuclear powers cleaner then any of the other efficeint ways we have of producing energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/index.htm http://www.nei.org/
AUTOMOBILES and other gas burning engines emit more greenhouse gasses than do coal and gas power plants. besides, there are other alternatives besides coal and gas, there is wind, solar, water and ethynol. and if nuclear waste can allegedly be 'recycled', then why is Yucca mountain in Nevada only ONE of the proposed dumping sites for all this nuclear waste that is supposed to be 'recycled'? maybe they are just going to reuse it by turning it into bombs...
An automobile doesn't emit anywhere near the amount of carbon dioxide as a 500 megawatt coal or gas plant. Wind and Solar plants aren't efficient enough to use for large scale power plants. This may change over time, in which case they may be useful, and replace our current energy infrastructure. But for the time being, they aren't worth it. Ethanol is a little more realistic in present energy infrastructure, but it still costs a lot of energy to produce and utilize for energy purposes. The only nations that can manage a positive energy balance by using ehtanol for fuel have to provide major energy subsidies, and in terms of energy production, most energy produced with large subsidies is still producing negative energy. Nuclear fuel is much safer the gas or coal plants. The US isn't building any conventional nuclear weapons at present. Nuclear energy still obviously produces waste, but about 90-95% of that waste can be reused in the fuel cycle in modern plants. And like I've said, putting radioactive waste into barrels is much better then putting it into the atmosphere. The only problem with nuclear plants is the waste they do produce stays hot for a long time. This can be mitigated by storing them in areas which are secured. While many of the proposed areas can't stay assured safe from geological activity the entire life, a period of ten thousand years or so, in this time the area can be renovated and monitered in the distant future. It's also likely that we'd have better ways to deal with this waste in ten thousand years.
it's not coal power plants that do most of the pollution of green house gases, it's the billions of internal-combustion engines that are running on this planet at any given time that are doing it.
They've decided to build nuclear power plants in the U.K. too. We'd be using renewable energy sources if they weren't so much more expensive (on a large scale) than nuclear power plants. I don't agree with that.. I'd rather pay more taxes for cleaner energy sources. I can't see the arguments about the cleanliness of nuclear power winning the majority over any time soon.. because what really worries people are terrorist attacks and meltdowns like Chernobyl. Also, if a plant did go down for some reason, we would lose all that power, wheras with renewable energy, if a few sub-stations went down we would not suffer nearly as much..
I totally agree with you! not to mention that nuke plants take up to 10 years to build. and a couple million dollars (don't know how many pounds that would be, sorry) i just saw something in the paper yesterday about the US building it's first wind energy field on water. I'm not sure where they would build it, but i'm guessing on a lake that doesn't have many violent storms. they would build the windmills out a quarter mile or so from a shore, to harness all the wind that would blows accross the surface of the water. SURELY that wouldn't cost millions of dollars to build! and think of how clean and safe that energy source is, compared to Nukes!
The wind energy field would cost around 15 million because of the new technology and new obsticles of building on water,Also neucler power plants are preyt safe the one in russia only broke because they had an inspection the next day and didnt want to shut down the plant and look bad,buti hope they start useing more hydrogen because when you use it it only makes water.
Why build nuclear power plants when we could be (given enough publicity, funding and research) less than 50 years away from an energy revolution? http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ZPE/ http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png This figure shows the relative fraction of man-made greenhouse gases coming from each of eight categories of sources, as estimated by the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project [1]. These values are intended to provide a snapshot of global annual greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000.
