Why isn't nuclear power the solution to our energy problem?

It could be except that there are a bunch of hysterical anti-nuclear power flat earth types that don't understand the technology or benefits of using it.

Look into the Sierra Club (as an example) and their abundance of silliness when it comes to using the earth's resources in abundantly beneficial ways.

Just remember they will attack you if you don't believe they way they do. After-all, in their minds there can't be any open dialogue or differing opinions.

The solution is to keep people clear of the fallout radius. It's not like we can't stick power plants in unpopulated areas. I don't think people really consider how our current energy production affects everyone. The burning of coal and petroleum for energy releases MANY harmful substances into the air which creates not only damage to our environment, but to our health as well. I think that nuclear power is a safer alternative because the government would obviously have standards that all nuclear power plants would have to stand up to in order to operate.

I totally agree!

Nuclear Power pros outwiegh the cons:

PROS

!. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.

2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem.

3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin)

4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.

5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors.

6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.

7. Creates high paying, skilled jobs.

8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.

9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

10. Fantastic safety record.

CONS

1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.

2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.

3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.

4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.

4. High cost of personnel.

5. Security concerns, terrorism, proliferation

Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.

Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.

I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".

Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.

Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

Many people do support nuclear power, but the important thing to remember is that it is still a finite resource--there is only so much plutonium and uranium on the planet, and once it's gone it's gone. If the world were to switch to 100% nuclear energy it would not last more than a few decades.

It is technologically safe and does not produce any emissions, but it is not sustainable in the future as much as other technologies are. And that is the key point. If we are going to invest heavily in the construction of alternative energy, why not invest in something that is going to last us for a while? That's just good economic sense.

it is the solution and partially because of some of the technology in remediation of nuclear waste and accelerated proton bombardment in new reactors that give it viability for mass energy in the future far beyond any other primary source. some of this was develop be the Russian and Israeli's because of Chernobyl. the second thing is zinc air fuel cells for auto's discovered in the 1800's and advanced and viable now to power cars buses and trucks . it is better than renewable it is a reusable loop fuel. google it if you don't believe me.oh and by the way I had thought the same thing years ago of the dangerously jettisoning waster into the sun but if as in the Challenger an explosion occurred watch out.

Besides it really is no longer necessary.

Radiation.

It's also too radioactive and can do more damage to our environment if it explodesl. It also creates way too much waste.

I could be but the environmentalists put a stop to it.

Chenoybal...

Hippy's don't like anything that works (hippy's don't work).