Nuclear power is more than just an occasional plot device on The Simpsons. It's a source of energy that lights up our televisions and heats our microwaves. As we explore ways to harness alternative forms of energy, however, the future of nuclear power grows increasingly uncertain. Is nuclear power our best energy alternative, or is it time to pursue other options?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I like nukes. I even have a friend who' s a nuke ;^D
Seriously nukes really only have one problem, cost. They cost around $9,000kw to install and take 10 yrs Progress Energy just said, one could do many other Alt energy's for less to much less. Solar Thermal generators with wood pellet, ect, backup since they are small steam engines can be done for under $3,000kw. Wind for around $1,000kw in many places, Tidal/river generators anywhere the water goes 2mph or faster are under $1,000kw. While others might say they cost more, I can do these prices out of my very small shop so big business should be able to beat me.
And of course the cheapest energy is that you don't use!! Insulation, CFL lights, eff can relieve the need of any new powerplants and make present coal plants obsolete for much less money..
Nukes need to be smaller, safer like the gas cooled pebble bed types that will cost much less than the monsters now planned before I'd want to pay for them. Maybe the naval sub, carrier types might work if they were declassified.
Jerryd
- jerryd
October 25, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think a large part of the cost of Nuclear is over regulation and the NIMBY effect. (Not In My Back Yard).
Unnecessary rules put in to appease the No Nukes factions of the 80's and 90's and costly litigation by people scared to have a plant in their area. (Thanks to movies like The China Syndrome)
Once people understand the safety record the existing plants have had over the past decade the cost of building a plant should go down.
There is a need for reliable, clean base-load power. For this can only be provided by a handful of Hydro projects and Nuclear.
- BCReason
May 6, 2009 7:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Were is this going to get the capital for renewables? From YOU and ME by the Carbon Cap and Trade tax scheme that takes effect in 2012. The carbon cap and trade programs turns the electric, manufactories,heavy trucks, cars, airlines etc into tax collectors for the state. It’s just a tax scheme.!! run by the CARB. Once the gov. get’s into the elect. etc. rates they’ll always remain high and never will go down, just like any other state taxes. The Fed’s already have their multi. Trillion dollar program S.3036 to take effect in 2012. It’s so bad that it has a 900 Billion dollar welfare program for the poor to offset their higher electric and fuel costs. It’s a sleeper to most people but to the politicians and the environmentalist groups who benifit the most from this tax scheme. Nuclear is 1/3 to build, cheaper($.016 KWH), cleaner(0),and doesn’t cover millions of square miles of State and Fed. lands,runs 24/7 plus the electric companies could finance them by themselves with little gov. help, and last for 50 years. Plus they can be built by existing tower lines. You want cheap electricty or do you want higher taxes, electric rates, goods and services, with a 5 million work crew tending the renewables(20 year max lifetime) FOREVER? But it’s not a option with these focks because it doesn’t have the cash flow/tax flow/ new gov. programs/ gov. grants/jobs program that renewables offer. Drilling for more oil will keep the costs down for the American Public while it takes 10 years to build anything and get our act together on a cost effective way to do it. It should be everything and not the gov. picking winners and losers at the expense of the American consummer or taxpayer.
- bcooper December 1, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Columbas S.C. is going to build 2 nuclear plants producing 1117MW each at a cost of 9.8 Billion each. They will supply 1.9 million homes. You have to spend $40,000 for a home solar system if you X's that by the 1.9 million homes that the nuclear plants are going to provide it's $76,000,000,000. 76 Billion - 20 Billion for the Nuclear plants is still 56 Billion more than for solar. The new Fed. tax credits for solar picks up half of the costs at 38 Billion on the 1.9 million solar homes that the taxpayers have to pay for.
52% of S.C. electricity is provided by Nuclear power compaired to 20% of the naion. France is 80-90% nuclear. Plus the Nuclear plant runs 24/7, lasts 50 years compaired to 20 max for a solar panels, roofing,etc. But Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club are fighting it so you can pay more for electricity and taxes to do the subsidies.
- bcooper December 2, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
So you are against subsidies?
Me too.
- poemgranite January 11, 2009 9:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The total cost of supplying everyone with solar power IS greater then building one central nuclear plant. Subsidies do not change that, only acting to shift the burden of the cost over a wider base.
- MrBook January 24, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm rather disheartened to see the ACC on this side of the debate, i mean yes, it is an organization based on the advancement of coal power, but on a broader scope we need to look at all forms of energy! coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, natural gas, AMERICAN (and I can't stress that enough) oil, and biofuels. America is in an energy crisis, and ALL energy (that comes from our own soil anyways) is good energy. Nuclear power also creates jobs the same way coal, and also "greener" forms of energy would. All good ways to boost our economy :)
- Brady November 10, 2008 11:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Brady,
Why would you be disappointed or disheartened by the ACC's argument? You are making the SAME argument as we did when we said,
"When it comes to energy generation, there is no one size fits all answer. One energy option will be the “best” fit in one area, while another is a “best” fit in another. North America needs as much domestically-produced, affordable, and clean energy as we can get. Coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, gas, biomass … they’re all options that need to be considered for each jurisdiction."
- ACC November 12, 2008 10:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
because right now it gives the impression that you oppose nuclear power by having you on the "NO" side, although i suppose the question does contain the word "best"... as you say it is not the case that you oppose nuclear power, i apologize, and i suppose i should have read more of your posts on this subject.
- Brady November 18, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I have in my a hand a model of a Uranium Fuel pellet. It is about the size of the tip of my pinkie finger down to the first knuckle. 3 quarters of an inch long and half an inch in diameter. The accompanying literature says it's the energy equivalent of 1800 lb. of coal . (almost a ton)
So imagine the comparative difficulty of shipping Fuel pellets to wherever they're needed as opposed to shipping a tons of coal.
This completely negates the argument of having to use local resources because they're local. It would cost around the same to ship Fuel pellets across country to West Virginia as it would to ship coal from a West Virginia coal mine to a West Virginia coal fired generator.
Then keep in mind that while coal maybe a local resource the pollution it produces goes world wide. CO2, Soot, Sulphur Dioxides, Heavy Metals and even radioactive isotopes are released into the environment from coal.
France with their 80% nuclear power is a good example of what Nuclear can do. The cleanest air in Europe and excess power to sell to other countries.
- BCReason May 6, 2009 7:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I would like to point out that there were 3 nuclear generating stations in the vicinity of land fall for hurricane Katrina. The stations are: Waterford, Grand Gulf, and River Bend. Waterford shut down for the storm, but was up and running within 2 days I believe. Grand Gulf and River Bend did not stop generating power throughout the storm and the aftermath. Unlike coal and gas powered plants - there is no need to haul or pipe in the fuel to be burned that day.
Oil rigs are structures that arguably endure the harshest conditions of any building on earth and for this they sometimes pay in "up" time.
- salspeeder September 21, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is Nuclear Power America's Best Energy Alternative?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Replacing non-renewable with non-renewable
Turning to nuclear energy might seem attractive on the surface. It's clean, apart from the deadly waste. However, in the long run it is really just replacing a non-renewable energy source with another non-renewable energy source.
Additionally, it's not as if uranium is in abundant supply right now, either. And just as with oil, most of the uranium supply will have to be imported from other countries for the US.
Nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas energies are all really just competing for last place. In the long run we will have to develop a sustainable energy plan.
- Kelly
July 8, 2008 9:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Competing for last place?
It's interesting to read that our key energy sources are competing for "last place" and that "in the long run" we need to come up with a sustainable plan. That argument sounds solid, but it actually eludes the responsibility of dealing with the here and now.
Just how long will this "long run" you're speaking of take? When will you present us with a "sustainable energy plan" that an average person can 1) rely on, and 2) afford? A decade, a century?
We would all love to go to a time where we can provide limitless energy with no impacts of any sort. Kind of a Star Trek future where we can order up our food and energy from a divot in the wall. Who wouldn't want that?
However, coal, nuclear, and other energy sources are providing abundant energy in the here and now AND doing so in an affordable and clean manner. At the same time, we're working toward the future and finding new ways to make that energy even more affordable, secure, and clean.
- ACC
July 11, 2008 2:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fascinating choice of opponents
The coal side's charts show that nuclear is cheaper! (Ignoring disposal of by-products, I presume.)
For anyone thinking about the "Peak Oil" topic and realizing that energy supply will HAVE to shift off oil and gas, the answer to "nuclear or coal OR something else" is "yes please, and how fast can we get it?" Y'all don't mention power-plant construction time. However, in that case the coal side doesn't get to say 240-something years of supply anymore, 'cos demand is about to multiply by a factor of 10. The nuclear side might mention fast breeder and pebble-bed reactors (and the time it takes to build them). FYI it's not too late to add an "Argument" about availability-here-and-now versus sustainability.
- HomoSapiensNotsomuch July 13, 2008 11:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
neither cheap nor clean
Nuclear power is too expensive: If you include all cost (building the plant, conveying uranium, deconstruction of power plant) renewable energy is cheaper.
The problem of waste disposal is still not solved which leads to further costs and environmental problems.
- winstonsmith July 28, 2008 3:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A comprehensive plan
We need power! Period!
The ACC is right on that one we need all sources of power to make sure our economy stays strong.
I personally think we should move away from coal and move towards nuclear as our primary source of base load energy, the reason being is that nuclear can do the job of providing base load power just as effectively as coal, coal however can be converted into clean fuels that can be run in our transportation sector.
Uranium supplies:
Although it is true that uranium is a finite energy source, the efficiency of the power plants utilizing it can be increased dramatically, on the drawing board breeder reactors can utilize spent fuels from todays reactors and use it as fuel, as we dismantle our aging nuclear weapons those can be used to create energy.
It has been estimated that our supply of nuclear fuel at today's usage can last up to 50K years being used in advanced reactors.
- mostly a conservative August 23, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only one answer ...
If there is an answer to this question - and I believe there is no one answer - that answer can only be found by science. After all, it is science, NOT religion or politics or popular opinion that gives us this technological option in the first place.
This is a scientific question, not a political one. Are we to vote on whether or not 1+1=2? Are we to vote on whether the Earth is round or flat? Moving or stationary? Center of the universe or not? Are we to vote on what is true or not true in nuclear physics or the environmental sciences or biology?
Is the efficiency and safety of nuclear energy truly a matter of popular support? Can one just simply "opt out" of what is scientifically true or false?
There are no doubt positives and negatives to whatever source of energy human decide to put to their own uses. I have no doubt, this question will be decided according to benefits vs. risks assessment and assessments ONLY by those who understand the science.
Politicians and pundits need not apply.
- Naumadd
February 21, 2009 8:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only one answer... just not what you suggest
There is one answer to this, but it can only be found by economics. Only a free market can answer what is "best" or "worse" because those words are relative words. How do you define best? In the sense that, I think, is implied above, best is a broad synonym for cost-efficient and practical with minimum risks. Therefore, let individuals in a free market choose whether or not nuclear power is "best" or not. Science is a tool in which we develop technology and make it more proficient, but it is the people that choose whether or not to use that technology. If government would deregulate at least some of its bans on using nuclear energy we could truly find out this answer.
Agreed, politicians and pundits "need not apply." Businessmen and those that need to use the energy, the individual citizens of the US, should decide--not government.
- nickodonnell
March 4, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.