Do you think we should build more nuclear power plants?
Nuclear power is good for America.
Nuclear Energy is an exceptional energy source that can greatly benefit the entire population of the United States. Nuclear energy is completely clean, a very inexpensive fuel source. Also, nuclear power is almost inexhaustible, since the world reserves of uranium could produce energy to meet the demands of human power consumption for 1,980,000 years.
Nuclear power, is produced by the safe and controlled fission reaction of uranium is capable of cutting the amount of Co2 produced by fossil fuels into the atmosphere per year in half, slowing global warming drastically CO2. Nuclear energy is completely clean power, and is very inexpensive. Nuclear energy, especially by fission or fusion, is the best source of energy for America. This new energy source, is easy to create and produces clean energy, which means no gases are released into the atmosphere from the process and no fossil fuels such as coal and oil are required.
Carbon from fossil fuels are not released into the atmosphere, making nuclear power a desirable fuel source and completely clean energy. By not releasing these gases, the process of global warming is slowed. One nuclear power plant can supply huge amounts of energy for America, around 740,000 houses in one year! This is equivalent to 13.7 million barrels of oil, or 3.4 tons of coal annually.
From 1995-2011, the meager 65 nuclear power plants in the U.S. have stopped the release of million tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere, approximately 54 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 11 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering Earth’s atmosphere. Although, compared to the amount of gases being pumped into the atmosphere a year, this is a small amount. With just 65 nuclear power plants 22% more Co2 is being stopped from entering Earth’s atmosphere. This comes out to one nuclear power plant saves .4% of Co2 per year. This may not sound like much at first, but the total amount of Carbon Dioxide saved per nuclear power plant is 4,400,000 tons! Nuclear Energy, is not only clean, but it is a cheap energy source. Studies have shown that wind and solar energy is actually more expensive per kilowatt of energy than nuclear energy. Unfortunately, the base cost of building a nuclear power plant scares off private energy and utility companies. But the long term savings, is not only cheaper in energy costs, but also in helping to slow global warming. When the correct information is evaluated, nuclear energy is shown to be the most inexpensive source.
Compared to the amount of energy being produced by the few plants in America, the price of building, waste disposal, decommissioning, and fuel, is minuscule. Nuclear power has taken the spot for the cheapest power source known to man, only 2.1 cents per hour of kilowatt energy. Another benefit of nuclear energy power plants are the jobs that will become available to build and maintain new power plants. Nuclear energy is a inexpensive fuel source that will benefit our economy.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear is the way
My idea for the best energy option for our country is nuclear energy. It’s great as it can produce lots of energy from a very small amount of atoms. It is a neutral energy source which means it gives off the same amount of carbon that it saves. This will be good as it will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we release from fossil fuels, this will help stop global warming as the greenhouse gases released won’t trap the solar flares from the sun causing the awful effects that global warming has. For example, we are having a lot of climate change like droughts which are damaging our crops as they have no water which leaves some people and animals with less or sometimes even no food which then leads to starvation which can cause death. Also these droughts can potentially leave people and animals with a lack of clean water which can spread disease which can again cause death and more. These things are incredibly important to avoid, and that was just explaining droughts.
Furthermore, nuclear energy is not very expensive which can help our economy expand. Our country can make more profit and get even further out of the recession we found ourselves in near 2009. This will benefit us lots as we can sort more problems that our country is facing. On the subject of economy, many more jobs will be made if we create more nuclear power plants, we can have less unemployment meaning more families will get out of debt and again our country will become more wealthy. Also, the fact that nuclear plants are quite high-tech could mean that we make more important and scientific discoveries.Posted by: TheSchoolGirlDebaterDebate for 6th grade classroom
I would like to open with a quote from Abraham Lincoln: America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
I think that this is crucial for this debate. By not building these plants, we would be losing electricity. We will be losing fossil fuel because we are spending it on electricity but we could easily use nuclear power plants so that we can save this earth and also so that we can create more electricity. It would take 1 coal plant to power 375,000 homes but 1 nuclear power plant to power 900,00 homes. That is a huge increase from a coal plant to a nuclear power plant.
A singe nuclear plant creates about a cubic meter of hazardous waste per year and 3 times more electricity than the typical coal plant.Posted by: AnonymousI think we should build more nuclear power plants because it is a clean source of energy used by other countries.
Many people are afraid of nuclear power because of the risks caused by severe accidents, such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. However, many European countries use nuclear power; France uses it to generate 75% of its electricity. It is considered a much cleaner power source than coal or oil and therefore less of a pollutant. Despite the drawbacks, there are still many advantages to the use of nuclear power over coal or oil.
Posted by: ErvinAnimeNuclear Power Plants are not as dangerous as people may think.
Nuclear power plants have focus primarily on the safety of their workers and carefully examining them and the surrounding environment to prevent mutations and damage to cells. The biggest concern of nuclear power is the location and toxic waste produced in the facility. We need to consider these to prevent the disaster in Chernobyl from ever occurring again. Hopefully in the future we will be able to figure out a sustainable use for nuclear waste but nonetheless we need to consider the problems of nuclear power.
The nuclear waste production
The decommission of power plants
Radioactivity in the environment
The future of the human race will depend on high amounts of power to sate the ever-growing hunger of our society. We need to learn and supply ourselves without ruining our environment. We will need more nuclear power plants for jobs and power.Posted by: AnonymousYes, we need more nuclear power plants to supply our nation with energy.
It is irrefutable that our nation needs energy. We are running out of coal, oil is subjected to controls by foreign power. Solar, wind and water cannot supply the needs our nation has. Nuclear power can provide a lot of the energy needs. We have developed many safeguards to assure that nuclear power plants are operated safely. Nuclear power can be constructed and operated safely providing us with a great deal of the energy we need.
Posted by: R43ShepNuclear energy is "green".
Nuclear energy would produce countless American jobs, it would lessen our dependence of middle east oil, and it is clean.
Posted by: AnonymousDemand of energy
In any possible scenarios, no one will be able to stop the depletion of oil reserves so what can we humans do? The only plausible solution might be to provide an alternate source till we have enough power to harness wind, sun and water. This alternate source is of course nuclear power.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear can directly replace coal or gas power plants.
In order to stop human-made global warming, coal and gas burning power plants need to be replaced. Wind and solar can only do part of it. Biomass can do a part. But they cannot to it all because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Nuclear power can do it, because it is not dependent on large amounts of energy storage, backup, land use or scarce fuel.
Nuclear fuel is inexhaustible. 4th generation nuclear power plants are 100 times more efficient, which means that billions of tons of nuclear fuel becomes economically accessible. This is a larger resource base than all fossil fuels put together.
Nuclear power can supply extremely cheap electricity and high temperature heat, allowing the production of fully synthetic liquid fuels with zero carbon emissions and no air pollution. The cost of this full will be similar to petrol at the pump. All these technologies are real, proven and available to any nation that enables nuclear technology.
Without nuclear power, it will all get far too expensive and the problems of energy poverty, climate change, air pollution, land degradation, water scarcity etc. Will not be solved as quickly or at all. This directly puts at risk the welfare, needs and aspirations of billions of people.
Everyone who calls himself an environmentalist should support nuclear power and do it gladly and confidently!
Joris van Dorp, MSc.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear Power is Worth the Risks
Nuclear Power: Our Energy Future
What do you think of when you hear the words nuclear power? How deadly it is in the form of a nuclear weapon? Or how it is very efficient and doesn’t pollute the air with greenhouse gases? Both are true about nuclear power, although, is it really worth its risks? Some people say it is not, and that we shouldn’t use it as a source of energy, but the majority of people say nuclear power is worth the risks and that it can solve many problems in the United States.
FIRST OF ALL, without nuclear power, the fight against global warming is a lost battle. Global warming is a huge problem in this world and everyone seems to be disagreeing about how to prevent it. The facts are that the average temperatures in the world are steadily rising every year. The temperature increases are causing icebergs in the south pole to melt, killing polar bears which might eventually lead to their extinction. Scientists say global warming is happening because of how much we pollute the air with fossil fuels. Coal gives off carbon dioxide (when burned) which harms the atmosphere allowing more sunlight to get through. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that is widely believed to be one of the main causes for global warming. The good thing about nuclear energy is that it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide. Currently nuclear energy avoids 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Nuclear energy is made by splitting an atom and does not give off carbon dioxide in the process. Nuclear power gives France some of the cleanest electricity in the world and doesn’t harm the air or atmosphere. With this we can slow down global warming and stop polluting the earth.
SECONDLY, the cost of nuclear energy would stay relatively stable and there is not as much variation as gasoline. Throughout the past 10 years gas prices have varied between $2 and $5 per gallon. If the cost is $4.50 per gallon you will probably not buy as much gas as you would if the prices were lower. Gas prices will continue to rise because it is a non-renewable resource and we will eventually run out. With nuclear energy, the price would remain stable. One pound of uranium can produce 6000 kilowatt hours of electricity, thats 6,000,000 hours of non-stop electricity! The prices of nuclear energy, used for electricity, have changed very little for the past 10 years. This is because you can get so much energy out of the smallest piece of uranium, one pound of uranium has the diameter of 1.2 inches. The price of nuclear power is not affected by any changes in global climate.
FINALLY, nuclear power will reduce foreign dependency on oil in the United States. Currently, the United States imports 58% of the oil we use in our everyday lives, mostly from Canada. If we stopped importing all of this oil we wouldn’t be able to power over half of the United States! We should be more independent and lower our need for these imports. The easy way to do this is start using more efficient energy, like nuclear energy that we can produce in the United States. By using this we would be able to reduce foreign dependency energy. France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence. We can start powering houses, cars, buildings, stores, etc. with nuclear power.
IN CONCLUSION, it is clear that nuclear power is worth the risks and can solve many problems in the United States. Without nuclear power, the fight against global warming is a lost battle, nuclear power provides a stable cost of energy, and nuclear power reduces foreign dependency on oil. It is obvious that if we don’t start making changes to our energy sources the United States will be in a crisis. Nuclear power is the answer and will help the United States avoid that from happening.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear plants are safe power sources that would benefit the country and help wean it from its oil addiction.
Nuclear power has been controversial since the 1940s. There is good reason to fear a nuclear accident, which would probably kill hundreds of people and cause widespread contamination. I believe this fear is being blown out of proportion. The chance of another Chernobyl disaster is very small. For example, France has been the leader in nuclear power consumption for a very long time and the French have maintained their plants safely to produce excess power. There have been a few accidents, but none life threatening. This shows that nuclear power is feasible and vital for energy independence.
Posted by: N4rrGetWorth the risk
Nuclear power plants are worth going for. In this hunt for energy, we can't afford to worry about things like exploding energy. If we protect the nuclear power plants, accidents like Japan can be avoided. Energy that could power millions of homes can't be avoided. It's just too much energy.
Posted by: AnonymousI support nuclear power plants
I support nuclear power plants because they are clean and safe, no pollution but I know that the side effect is that it is very dangerous. We could build the nuclear power plant away from villages or cities so that it wouldn't kill any people. That would be a good way to avoid the casualties of other nuclear accidents.
Posted by: AnonymousYES!!
Our planet is going to waste right now!! Nuclear power stations generate the same amount of energy as fossil fuel energy power stations, with almost NO CO2 being emitted!!! By fact, survey 2009, the least people had accidents in nuclear power stations than in any other power industry! Any other ways of generating power, are NOT as efficient AND cheap as this is.. FACT
Posted by: PlanetLoverrYes.
Nuclear power plants are an extremely efficient way to make energy. No other method creates so much energy out of so little material. Solar panels don't provide enough, and coal-burning plants pollute the air with smoke. But nuclear power plants are both powerful, and do not harm the environment. We just need to be careful and be sure to install the right safety features.
Posted by: martiansharkyes, we should use nuclear energy
Without nuclear energy, we would be lost, because the coal and oil deposits are running out. And since nuclear energy is safe, it was just the fault of the bad energy decisions by the governments of Ukraine and Japan. They did not take into account that they were placing the nuclear reactors next to a very populated area, and that it may have also been in danger of a tidal shift
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power plants are not harmful to society
Using past failures is not a viable reason to stop. What if every famous person in history stopped because of failure, where would we be? Nuclear power plants do more good than bad. Sure a few incidents of carelessness have occurred in the past but that is not a reason for us to stop.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, Once you ACTIVELY Fund Plants, you have no problems
Nuclear power is an incredibly efficient way to generate a very large amount of power for a large number of people. The opposition will bring up "Fukushima" and "Chernobyl" power plants as their main sources for opposition, but frankly, none of these cases are really relevant anymore if adequate funding is put into place.
Chernobyl was a disaster in more ways than one. The design was riddled with errors, along with being one of the FIRST power plants, drunkenness was a major problem with many of the operators in the power plant. The power plants built recently have been held to an incredibly high safety standard, with numerous fail-safes put into place. The Chernobyl plant also had major cuts to its maintenance budget, as well as an increase in the power required from the plant. Also, the handling of the disaster was one of the worst possible ways to handle it.
"Fukushima" was a power plant that was not only built in an incredibly earthquake prone zone, it had power generators (reserve) on the ground, rather than on the roof. Combine this with the one year cleanup of the plant that the Japanese have done, this disaster was not only preventable, but has a relatively small impact.
Do not let the fear-mongering Greenpeace deceive you, Nuclear power is an incredibly useful and CLEAN source of power. Just don't cut the funding to them for long periods of time and build the backups in areas where you expect Tsunamis to come in (This is just simple logic).Posted by: bp92000Power resources in most of the countries in the world is inadequate compared to their requirements. So, I agree with it.
The energy requirements of the world as a whole are huge, and the availability is scarce. Other available forms of energy, such as hydro-power energy and the thermal power energy, are not adequate for our requirements. By the help of nuclear power plants, we may able to satisfy our present needs of our energy requirements to a great extent. The only thing is to be kept in mind that the misuse of nuclear energy is most dangerous. So we have to take utmost care and precaution. Safety measures are very important in the case of nuclear energy plants. It should also be ensured that the energy is used for our energy requirement purpose only.
Posted by: BurnaCuteLike it or not it's the best option
The fact is that both wind and solar produce over 5 times the CO2 of a nuclear power plant. Uranium is very abundant, as common as tin. If were to rely only on nuclear for all power needs, with increase in power needs factored in, It would be 1,200 years before we reached equilibrium point. Waste, were building new places to store it. New nuclear reactors use Thorium as fuel not Uranium. Thorium waste only has to be stored for 500-1000 years. That's pretty good. Did you know the average coal plants put 1,000,000% more radiation into the air the nuclear. Want more good stuff, OK. Thorium is 4-5 times as abundant as uranium. That a 5000 year supply. I think we'll have fusion figured out by then. Best of all, independence. 65% of the uranium on earth is owned by close allies, Canada and Australia. Want more, fine. The United States of America has 40-50% of all the Thorium on earth. Nice right. Time for the last nail in the coffin. Nuclear is expensive, That's, BS. I cant even lie with a strait face. The operational life span of a Gen III+ reactor is 80 years. 120 with up grades. If I was to make a 100o Megawatts with nuclear, coal, gas, solar, and wind for 80 years. Gas would cost 3 times as much, coal 10 times as much, wind is 20 times, solar, well I don't know but its over 30 times. It's the land tax that gets you on solar. You need 20 Square Miles of solar panels to have the same out put as a nuclear plant. And lets hope that it never snows or rains or becomes night again or we'll be boned with solar. A side note, Those who want big batteries or a "smart grid" forget ware batteries come from. They need to be lithium, a nice expensive metal that explodes with contact to water. All of it from Chile. A fairly unstable country, who like china a lot more then use. I give you Middle East 2.0.
Fun Fact of the Day: Did you know that when you eat a banana you get more radiation then the a person who works at a nuclear plant for a year. A hole year, all in one peace of fruit. Yum.Posted by: nlesley15New technology leads to less waste
Breeder reactors, though an old concept, are much more efficient per unit of fuel and produce shorter lived waste. I am not so sure about this fifty word thing, seems like a waste of space for me to have to type all of this, but oh well I'm done anyway.
Posted by: AnonymousJAPAN SHOULD BUILT NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS FULL STOP!!!!!
i think japan should built more nuclear power stations because it creates a lot of eletricity and dosen't let out smoke and pollute the air. and japan need lots of nuclear powers and some people think nuclear power stations are very dangerous but they are not as them seem they are very useful and helpful
Posted by: Anonymousit works all the time.
As long as a nucear reactor has uranium to fuel it, it can work 24/7. Solar and wind and hydro generating stations can't do that. We also have a really big place to put nuclear waste: space. A small increase in tax might be enough to pay for a pilot operated rocket that can be reused to carry nuclear waste into space.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, more energy = cheaper energy
There have been several debates about this on www.debate.org (also owned by Juggle, so I'm not promoting a competing website or anything) that go into a lot of detail on the costs and safety. But basically, greater supply of energy = lower cost (laws of supply and demand), lower cost of energy means lower overhead cost for every single company, which means lower cost of goods.
Posted by: AnonymousThe risks associated with nuclear power plants are too high to validate building more of them.
While nuclear energy is clean and relatively safe the fallout from a safety violation or other accident is too great to make it a viable energy alternative. We don't know enough about the long-term effects of exposure to nuclear energy and power plant emissions to guarantee that humans won't experience adverse effects from living or working in proximity to the plants. We also have no good place to store the waste, which endangers our ground water supply. Until we find a way to recycle the waste and can unequivocally guarantee human safety we need to continue to look at other alternatives.
Posted by: SpoiledKellyNuclear energy is extremely safe.
Nuclear energy is the safest resource while at the same time is a highly reliable, affordable and large-scale energy producing source. Nuclear plants emits almost no harmful emission. They do generate a small amount of waste, but France has demonstrated that it could be reused and safely stored. Nuclear plants don't affect global warming and also are extremely safe in addition to having millions more times energy in a per unit of volume than fossil fuels or water.
Now, all of you guys probably will mention the nuclear accident in Fukushima. Maybe you would say, "Fukushima showed that there is high risk in nuclear plants". But please mention to yourself, how many people actually died directly from long radiation expose. 100? 200? 300? Nope. Try 0.
No one died directly from the nuclear plant radiation. In fact, Fukushima showed the direct opposite, the nuclear plant saved a lot of people.
However, there is a danger in a nuclear plant. This danger is a high release of radiation, which is, of course, extremely unlikely because there are numerous shielding and safety mechanisms.
But in cases like the Fukushima, the heating system can fail, the backup system can fail and radioactive material may overheat and a high radiation release is necessary.
But it is extremely unlikely that the radiation is high enough to cause cancer or illness immediately because of the protection from lead. In addition, contact with medium amounts of radiation is healthy; your blood is radioactive, so is the sun. And even if the worst nuclear accident happens, we have a luxury advantage over dams and fossil fuel plants: time. People from the village could escape away before they are exposed to high radiation and will not be harmed at all.
Now what if the same scenario that happened in Fukushima is now the village (9.0 earthquake, forty-foot tsunami) with a dam or fossil fuel plant. The dam would release a huge amount of water and would create a huge flood or even possibly wipe out and kill the village in seconds to minutes. A fossil fuel plant could cause explosions and release huge amount of pollutants into the air and if the plant is working around an area with water, it would release pollutants and debris into the water and also into the air. It would be disastrous.
The nuclear plant in Fukushima certainly saved a lot of people.
As for fossil fuels, they are related to a high cancer rate lately and have also caused severe damage throughout history. For example, on three miles island, many people died in explosions of fossil fuel plants and also many animals have died because of oil and other debris in other scenarios.
At least 2000 people have died in India because of a dam disaster and more fatality in other examples.
Nuclear energy has clearly been the safest energy yet the most energy reliable and efficient source.Posted by: AnonymousIt is a good replacement and safe.
The main reason why people don't want Nuclear power is because it has the "Potential" to be a big risk. Like Fukushima or Chernobyl. However they don't seem to know, or really want to know, that it was because of HUMAN error that these things happened. We need to find a replacement source of power and soon as Oil is starting to run out. Nuclear energy is clean, safe (if the strict rules are followed) and produce a lot of energy. The only real downsides are human error and the disposal of the waste, which takes a long time to degrade.
Posted by: AnonymousSay Yes to Nuclear
We have the technology to make nuclear safe. We do need electricity and we should not have to rely on other countries to supply it and in the process hold us to ransom with prices. Wind farms are not consistent and a blot on the landscape, solar panels in fields are ugly and fields should be left for farming and solar panels on houses are ugly and only affordable for the few.
Posted by: AnonymousAll about Nuclear power stations
Economic- Cheaper to generate electricity from nuclear power stations (8 pound/unit) than from solar power (70 pound/unit). Increase job, every nuclear power station needs around 1000 or even more people to run. Environmental- Nuclear power stations have nothing to do with global warming and it is a clean source compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power stations do not generate carbon dioxide, green house gases.
There were some accidents and damage happened due to Nuclear power stations, one of them is Japan Fukushima but this case of accident is different with other accidents happened before. The nuclear power station built in Japan Fukushima was designed and built to withstand earthquake magnitude of 8.0 and waves that are 5.7 meters high but the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan Fukushima was way over the level, which the nuclear power station could withstand that cooling system got damaged and some radio active materiel leaked out but it didn't actually cause any death or added any more damages to what was done due to natural deserter .Posted by: JinyoungLeeNuclear Power is not Very Dangerous
If you lived next to a (properly functioning) nuclear power plant, you would absorb no more than 30 microsieverts of radiation in a year. For comparison, we absorb 390 microsieverts from Potassium 41 in the body. Nuclear waste is stored in a facility which is adequate for preventing major leakage of gamma radiation. And a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear weapo. Same principle, but a nuclear reactor melting down is akin to a boiler exploding, not a fission weapon.
Posted by: AnonymousEconomically and Environmentally
Even if it is expensive to build the plants, imagine how much we can save after years of running it! Debts can get paid back, with more educational opportunities for citizens. The amount we can cut back by depending on nuclear power instead of coal-burning is tremendous.
Global warming is a big issue. No matter WHAT the cost, we must protect Earth. Without it, there is nothing. Coal takes up almost 50% of our energy resource. We have to change that in order to decrease the rising of global temperature and greenhouse gases.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power is a great benefit to America.
The amount of CO2 being produced would be cut down drastically from the current CO2 production coming from America. Also, the amount of uranium the world has to offer is almost impossible to pass up, especially if it is going towards a power source that can produce more power than that of the coal and oil burning factories.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power is NOT dangerous
Nuclear power technology is improving at a huge rate. Nuclear power will kill less people than petroleum in this day and age. Some nuclear power designs can last thirty years without maintenance.
Also, nuclear power has a highly efficient fuel source, uranium. Uranium will provide more ohms than coal will in current electricity stations and uses less of its resource to do so!Posted by: AnonymousA Better America
In these trying times, we are at the brink of a federal crisis. Jobs are scarce and new sources of clean energy are years away. We need jobs now and for the considerable future. Ethanol is clean but corn is scarce and wind and solar only go so far before you have to replace them. A nuclear plant would provide safe energy and jobs now, just what America needs because its a job that cant be outsourced to India or China.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, I agree on nuclear power for the win!
Nuclear power is good because we are not producing any CO2 which is the main cause of pollution. Nuclear power plants produce enough energy to power a mega city. This power can be changed to make it more efficient. It's not perfect but it gives a massive amount of energy.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, nuclear power offers the only reasonable solution to our energy issues.
Most of the negative propaganda towards nuclear power is based on fear and a lack of understanding of the workings of nuclear power. To adress the idea that a nuclear power plant can be used as a weapon; The fuel used in these plants is not refined enough to cause a nuclear explosion. The absolute worst case scenario is a radiation leak which would be relatively slow moving and is very unlikely if the proper protocols are taken. The resulting nuclear waste is a staggeringly small amount. All of the nuclear waste in the world would easily fit into a couple high school gyms. It can be safely stored underground at facilities such as the Yuka mountain facility. There is research which shows promise of being able to cause nuclear waste to decay which would allow us to dispose of waste permanently. As far as the benefits; nuclear power offers a cheap, clear power source. It would also allow us to eliminate fossil fuels. Currently electric cars use electricity generated by fossil fuels at a power plant. This doesn't actually do too much to help the environment. Nuclear power would allow us to not only power electric vehicles, but also would allow us to produce hydrogen (from the electrolysis of water) which could be used to fuel jets which consume a great deal of fossil fuels and cannot be powered by electricity. The only bi-product of burning hydrogen is water as (H2+O = H2O). Nuclear power would give mankind a good deal of time (250 years by some estimates) to find renewable sources of energy and build the needed infrastructure.
Posted by: AnonymousWE MUST GET POWER
Do we want nuclear power to be a primary source of energy in the U.S.? Of course we do! Nuclear power is an eco-friendly alternative to coal, it will help the U.S. To become less dependent on fossil fuels, foreign oil, and it will create more jobs. This ends my argument!
Posted by: Anonymousnuclear power does not polute the atmosphere
There are no chimneys at nuclear power plants.
There have been no American deaths from American commercially operating power plants.
Nuclear power is a renewable energy source, breeder reactors create more fuel than they consume.
Nuclear highly radioactive waste problem is solved by storing it at the yucca mountain depository.Posted by: AnonymousI agree that more nuclear power plants must be built.
Resources are running out, things are vanishing at an extreme pace. I am certain that something has to be done real quick in order to save the resources that remain. To do that, shifting to nuclear power plants for producing electricity is an important step and should be sought for in my opinion so that a peaceful future can be made possible!
Posted by: R0d30StamYes we should because it has less air pollution.
We should use nuclear power because it doesn't let out smoke and pollute the air. Instead of smoke nuclear power plants let out steam. We shouldn't use green power because thousands of birds get injured and killed each year. Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fusion.
Nuclear power powers 6 percent of the world’s power. Since it can power heat and electricity they use it often. We should use nuclear power because it can produce a large amount of electricity with out polluting the air around us. Another reason we should use more nuclear energy is that it is a cheaper source of energy than gasoline, a fuel that has been damaging the economy for a lot years. Even though the cost is high it is totally worth the cost.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear Power plants do not give off CO2 emmissions...
I see a lot of people arguing on the 'no' side that nuclear power plants cause CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas/global warming concerns. The only CO2 they produce is from the gasoline that people who work at the plant use to get to work to operate the thing.
Nuclear safety culture is incredible also. Anyone who has ever set foot inside a nuclear facility knows that safety comes first. Not like your generic safety comes first in other industry, they actually mean it and practice it in nuclear.
Deaths from all the worst nuclear disasters worldwide is a fraction of a fraction of the deaths caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels to generate power.
Look up how many nuclear industry deaths compared to other power industry deaths. From production to maintenance the safety culture carries on throughout. The other fossil fuel burning power generators which make up the vast majority of electricity generation in the world do not take steps to protect their workers even in the simplest of things.
For example: In a nuclear safety culture you would be coached that you must use a handrail while traversing up or down a stairway. No matter if you are at a plant or at some corporate office with no plant even close by.Posted by: AnonymousCheapest and Safest
To those arguing Nuclear Energy is unsafe, it is actually the safest form of power production Mankind has ever created.
For every TerraWatt Hour of electricity produced by COAL, on average, 100 people die in its production.
For every TerraWatt Hour of electricity produced by SOLAR, on average, 0.44 people die in its production.
For every TerraWatt Hour of electricity produced by WIND , on average, 0.15 people die in its production.
For every TerraWatt Hour of electricity produced by NUCLEAR ENERGY, on average, 0.04 people die.
As you can see, Nuclear is by far the safest option.
Also, contrary to popular belief, Nuclear energy produces little waste. Minute amounts of waste are produced per unit of energy produced.
Furthermore, Nuclear is also by far the cheapest, as nuclear power plants are designed to operate in some cases for upwards of 70 years. While their initial construction cost is high, they operate with extreme efficieny over a long period of time.
It is for these reasons that nuclear must be taken seriously, and any true environmentalist will see through the propaganda and support nuclear energy as the best answer to climate change.Posted by: retrolordit is a great help for the poor families
they don't need to eat because they will die. if people arguing on the 'no' side that nuclear power plants cause CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas/global warming concerns. The only CO2 they produce is from the gasoline that people who work at the plant use to get to work to operate the thing. Nuclear safety culture is incredible also. Anyone who has ever set foot inside a nuclear facility knows that safety comes first. Not like your generic safety comes first in other industry, they actually mean it and practice it in nuclear. Deaths from all the worst nuclear disasters worldwide is a fraction of a fraction of the deaths caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels to generate power. Look up how many nuclear industry deaths compared to other power industry deaths. From production to maintenance the safety culture carries on throughout. The other fossil fuel burning power generators which make up the vast majority of electricity generation in the world do not take steps to protect their workers even in the simplest of things. For example: In a nuclear safety culture you would be coached that you must use a handrail while traversing up or down a stairway. No matter if you are at a plant or at some corporate office with no plant even close
Posted by: shungait is worth it
Nuclear power has a chance of becoming a bigger energy source because it is nearly global warming friendly and is constant and reliable. However a nuclear power plant is expensive and dangerous, radiation can cause severe harm and even kill.
In the next few years Australia will probably build a nuclear power plant after Australia realizes that nuclear power is global warming friendly and they have a lot of uranium.
Most of the world however is starting to build nuclear power plants and the future will probably be an increase in the number of power plants.Posted by: Anonymous2nd Most Effective Energy Source
There is only one energy source more efficient (one that produces the most energy for the least amount of matter) and that's anti-matter/matter annihilation. If we are to advance as a species, we MUST use nuclear power. And solar energy is technically just a byproduct of nuclear fusion.
Posted by: AnonymousYES
I think that we should continue to build plants and conduct further research into Nuclear Energy. Considering our options, nuclear is the best choice. Solar and Wind energy is obviously unreliable and Coal pollutes the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants are taking greater safety precautions so that accidents such as Hiroshima don't happen again and research is being done on how to use all of the remaining energy in the uranium rod. Also, uranium waste (if a leak happened) is practically nothing compared to the damages on the environment caused from burning fossil fuels. We're running out of options here.
Posted by: AnonymousWe are wasting gas.
We need them if our electricity industry is to survive, we should not be using gas to produce electricity, It is a domestic fuel but it won't last forever, and the more we waste it by using it to make power, then the more expensive it becomes as it runs out. Think of your children, think of your grand children, how will they keep warm, because with global warming comes more severe winters and without gas and unable to use nuclear fuel in their houses, or coal, then they will all freeze, maybe they can keep warm by burning each other??
Posted by: AnonymousRunning out of time and options
We all know fossil fuels wont be around forever. Eventually we'll have to turn to nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the ability to fulfill our power needs. Nuclear power is safer, and will continue to get more so. Our world is changing and we need to find new solutions to new problems. Im not saying we go entirely nuclear. But having more plants wouldnt be a bad idea.
Posted by: alaitinenI believe that we should build more nuclear power plants, because we need cheap and reliable energy.
The USA is in need of cheap and reliable energy, and nuclear energy has proved to be extremely safe and reliable over the years. There will be detractors who are scared of a meltdown, but being afraid will not resolve our problems. There has not been a major problem with a nuclear reactor since 3 Mile Island, and that was pretty mild for a nuclear disaster. They want to replace coal burning plants, but the alternatives are unproven. Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. Nuclear power has stood the test of time across Europe and North America, but the plants are growing old and need to be replaced. Let's not kick a proven technology to the curb.
Posted by: HospitableLewis42Providing for Australia's energy needs
Research & Development needs to be into the use of thorium for the future of Australia's energy needs. Nuclear has been in operation for decades and despite the few accidents has proven safe for the most part and all of these use uranium not thorium.
Thorium is safer and quite abundant in Australia, so why not take advantage of clean power?Posted by: AnonymousNuclear Research is good.
Currently all we have in terms of Nuclear reactors is a fission reactor, but in the not too far off future if we continue our research in the branch of Nuclear Chemistry and etc. we will be able to construct a fusion reactor, a fusion reactor would actually be completely clean energy and would massively reduce the use of all un-clean fuels as it would more than replace all other forms of electricity.
Posted by: AnonymousYes we need nuclear power plants.
You read in the newspaper we have all this gas underground. Well how come we are not using it. Industry uses gas and the pipes are huge and making steel using natural gas is burning it up and the home owner gets a nice big bill. If its so plentiful how come its not cheaper. The wind turbine looks like hell. We build a new nuclear power plant it cost a lot to build but it will last for ever. The sun is nuclear energy and it keeps us going day in and out.
To dispose of it we can do two things, bore a hole into the earth and install concrete around it. Then when we need to dispose of the next batch we use the same hole and fill that and keep on going. There's also the trench in the ocean that is five miles deep, install it in lead and sink it. We need to do something cause all we are doing is fighting over it. If the east wants all this money for oil let them have it, we will have our power. Now, with electric cars coming into the picture we might not need it at all.Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power plants are the way to the future!
With nuclear power plants our energy problems would be solved. There is still pollution and melting of ice caps but you'd have more control over nuclear weapons and uranium by creating more nuclear power plants. It is also a constant source of energy unlike solar or wind energy. It also doesn't take up as much space/land as solar panels and wind turbines do.
Posted by: AnonymousThe amount 1 kilogram of Uranium can produce! And is it safe?
It is proven that 1 Kg of U-235 can produce as much energy as 10 TONNES of coal, also, a lorry full or U-235 could power a whole power station for a whole year!
Is it safe?
Yes. EDF Energy plans to base its four new plants on a design called a European pressurised water reactor (EPR). The EPR is a latest-generation plant with multiple safety systems.
The UK nuclear industry already has a strong, proven safety record. The safety regime that the new plants will have to follow is one of the toughest in the world, according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The environmental impact of constructing, operating and finally decommissioning the power stations will be assessed and monitored by the Environment Agency.Posted by: AnonymousWe are living in a world with ever bulging population and not so steady economy.
To support such a mass of population and to make the economy steady we need energy from all sources. The fact is that nuclear power plants are not safe, fragile, threat to people are the fears of common man and nothing else. Everyone gives the Fukushima nuclear reactor accident in Japan as the main example of why we shouldn't follow nuclear energy. But nobody has pointed out that the number of causalities are infinitesimal. The fact that Japan is situated in an earthquake zone having seismic range of 9.0. This alone is very dangerous. But what we all missed is that the safety standards that er maintained in that nuclear power plant. It is due to the safety standards for which the authorities found ample amount of time to vacate the cities surrounding the city in which fukushima nuclear reactor is present.
Everybody has learned from the disaster. Everyone is keeping safety standards as their foremost priority. Many are gunning for renewable energy resources like solar power and wind power as the alternative to nuclear power. But they require much wider space to establish and their energy capacity is far less than that of nuclear power. Most of all our energy need will increase by 50% by 2020. We need faster, cleaner and cheap energy which can be produced in a large mass to quench the thirst for energy.
We give examples of countries like Japan, Germany and other countries who are gunning for solar energy. But there are power houses like USA, Australia, Austria, UAE, Iran and many other countries who also support the nuclear power.
The fact that every Govt. has learned from the past. Everyone is giving safety standards as the first priority.
Gone are those days when any company can bypass the laws and safety standards and will cause a massive damage to public life like that happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine or in Bhopal, India. As far as today's safety standards nuclear reactors are the safest place on the earth and there is no need of replacing them if we all want to have sufficient energy in future
SambitPosted by: sambitCarbon neutral and clean
Nuclear energy is one of the very few truly carbon neutral energy sources. It provides sustained high output of energy is ultimately one of the cleanest energy sources if operated competently. Economic revival without secure energy supply is not realistic, and nuclear can guarantee stable energy supplies for the next several centuries. Novel technologies also allow for nuclear waste recycling and minimisation.At the end it simply makes economic sense, plus the added bonus of energy independence in an increasingly volatile fossil fuel-dominated energy market. As an added bonus it provides high-tech jobs and training for scientist and engineers, preventing the brain-drain and securing future competitiveness of the economy as a whole!
Posted by: AnonymousImpending brown outs if we don't.
The world is moving towards hybrid vehicles, plug in vehicles, etc., but we are not building out the infrastructure to support charging these plug in vehicles in our homes. If we don't start working on more power plants, it won't matter how many plug cars we build, nobody will ever be able to buy them because there isn't enough electricity being generated to charge them. Technology is changing, but the U.S. is falling way behind. All alternatives of power generation has issues. Coal and natural gas power plants create carbon emissions. The technology of solar isn't far enough along to be able to supply the demand. Nuclear, which also has issues, doesn't produce any carbon gas, so to combat global warming, we need something like that. I believe nuclear is probably a short term answer until we can come up with some safer form of energy generation. Hopefully in the not too distant future, most homes will have solar panels on their roofs and can generate most of their own electricity, until that time, I don't really see much of an alternative.
Posted by: AnonymousA way to cure Global Warming.
Global warming is a huge trench that the world is suffering from and if we don't do something about it, the suns rays will soak through our atmosphere and destroy everything. Nuclear power plants take ten years to build but we need to do something about Global Warming now. It may take a while but it is defiantly worth it rather than never doing anything at all. Plus nuclear power plants is good for clean energy and there is no other energy source that provides that. The plants don't pollute either and pollution is the main cause for Global Warming. Nuclear power plants are definitely the best alternative for burning-coal or any other energy source. The nuclear power plant has a contrary side too but it's positives defiantly over powers them all.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy not?
Currently, existing renewable energy sources are not economically viable, not at the rate the world is growing. Nuclear is much cleaner than coal or other forms. Nuclear is safer than the environmental wackos make them out to be. Lets get on board and get out economy going again. Fossil fuels are only going to last for a limited amount of time so we might as well start using other sources while we still have time. Lets do this!
Posted by: AnonymousI support nuclear power plants, because they provide clean energy.
Nuclear power plants are one of the best ways to produce high levels of electricity. The only waste they produce is radioactive spent fuel rods, which can be easily and safely stored. Many people worry about radiation from nuclear power plants, but what they don't realize is that coal power plants pump a lot of radiation directly into the air.
Posted by: 5h4yGustYES. IT'S TIME.
Our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels is way too high. It WILL run out eventually people. It wont always be here. Plus, Nuclear energy in the long run will be a hell of a lot cheaper for us to be using then for us to continue to use these products that, btw, are harmful to the environment.
Posted by: LeonTheBraveI support building more power plants, because they provide abundant, clean energy, and good high-paying jobs.
We are in an energy crisis. Gas is expensive, coal is dirty, and green energy just can't keep pace. Currently, nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of our total power, here in the U.S. Building more plants will help ease the current crisis. There is a healthy market for energy, and it is a very good investment. Also, building the plants creates work, and the plant, once operational, provides high-paying jobs, and an economic boon to the community. This often results in tax-relief for the local population. Despite their risks, which are slim when skilfully managed, nuclear power is one of the answers to our continuing energy crisis.
Posted by: MeatyClarence70yes
nuclear power plant is important and safer.Just as many conventional thermal power stations generate electricity by harnessing the thermal energy released from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plants convert the energy released from the nucleus of an atom via nuclear fission that takes place in a nuclear reactor. The heat is removed from the reactor core by a cooling system that uses the heat to generate steam, which drives a steam turbine connected to a generator producing electricity.
Posted by: AnonymousWe should keep on advancing in technology.
Eventually, we will be able to make nuclear power eco-friendly, safe, and efficient. We will soon be able to bring the price of power plants down. As technology advances, everything can be done.
Posted by: Anonymous
Nuclear plants pose a real danger because if there is a mishap, there will be tremendous destruction and loss of lives.
In the past, we have seen disasters like Chernobyl in Russia where millions have been affected.
Posted by: dekrenFreedom to Earth
Only 2 words: Chernobyl, Fukushima. Who can guarantee 100% that they will occur depending disastrous accidents in the future. Let future generations to live for without the threat of nuclear disaster.Let's finally put priorities in our lives. All these arguments about cheap energy seem ridiculous in front of the victims of Chernobyl and Fukushima
Posted by: giogrThe nuclear industry is full of deceit and propaganda.
Nuclear power and nuclear materials are dangerous. Personnel that do not tell the truth regarding risks, sickness and the number of deaths associated with nuclear power and materials in the United States compromise nuclear safety and security.
Threats to whistle-blowers is but a tip of the human factors failures associated with nuclear power. Trusting liars and those whose concern is that of money over human health and welfare with one of the most destructive forces known to human kind, nuclear power, is indicative of failing cultural values of our society.
The nuclear power industry has bought its way into the political realm of Washington DC politics and participates fully in the corruption of the U.S. political scene. Welcome to the Corporate States of America.Posted by: AnonymousWe should not build more nuclear power plants, as better forms of energy are available.
Wind power, solar power and wave power are being used very widely in other countries, so there is no need to build more nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. There are cleaner, more efficient and less damaging options available, so generating energy using nuclear power should be a thing of the past.
Posted by: R053NeddyBetter alternatives are around
Too many developed countries now depend too much on electricity. By reducing the amount of dependency on electricity, we can just rely on clean renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind power. Indeed nuclear power produces a tremendous amount of electricity, disasters do happen. If a nuclear power plant goes bad, the nuclear waste will be around the area and cause serious health issues. What happens if a solar panel goes bad? Not much but some replacement parts. A windmill? same thing. What about a dam? Well yes, thousands of people can potentially die, but there can be preventative measures like diverting the water to emergency canals so the damage is minimal. The cons for these alternatives to nuclear power are MUCH SAFER.
Posted by: Just_another_bored_mindthere dangerous
in Russia a entire city was evacuated because the nuclear power plant had a melt down it still to this day is uninhabitable cause levels of radiation are high. people make mistakes the oil in gulf was caused by one individuals mistake that set of a chain of events the spill itself was a time bomb cause a flaw in the design of the drill
Posted by: AnonymousIt's just too expensive and too dangerous!
The generation of nuclear power might be cheap, but not when people are actually building the plant! The engineers that create the storage units and the actual plant are not trained well enough! Not only is it hard to pay for, but it is also not safe for anyone working on it, the people living by it, and possibly the whole state if an accident were to happen!
Posted by: AnonymousIt can get into wrong hands!
Since we have not discovered a proper way to dispose of the radioactive material that comes out of the nuclear power plant, we should not use it because some terrorists can use it to attack and harm that place. If by any chance it is spread out around us there can be many chances of people having cancer and birth defects. It is better to play safe and do a bit of hard work than risk your health and easily get done with the job. In the future, going forward, if we are 100% sure that the radioactive material is in safe hands or can be stored safely then we may proceed, but unfortunately not at the moment!
Posted by: Anonymousno more nuclear please
We shouldn't make more nuclear plants because it effects the air, people and the planet. It makes many people sick and a there's a chance they can die. Not to forget, the waste from nuclear power plants is toxic for humans and the planet for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. With nuclear proponents saying we need as many as 3,000 more plants (some say it’s more like 17,000) to scale up to meet the climate challenge, nuclear waste containment is unthinkable.
Posted by: AnonymousThey will kill us.
They are extremely bad for the environment, not to mention the cancer you could get from this. They contaminate your water supply from mixing materials of titanium and uranium and will NOT actually reduce the dependency on other countries for oil. Even though they state that they will reduce dependency it will not, simply because nuclear power plants produce electricity, not oil.
Posted by: Anonymousten reason not to build nuclear power plants
1. Nuclear faces prohibitively high—and escalating—capital costs.
2. Plant construction is limited by production bottlenecks.
3. New nuclear plants probably won’t be designed by American companies.
4. Unresolved problems regarding the availability and security of waste storage.
5. Nuclear faces concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues.
6. Nuclear reactors require water use amid shortages.
7. Safety concerns still plague nuclear power.
8. Nuclear is already a mature technology—it will not get cheaper.
9. Other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build.
10. Nuclear subsidies take money away from more effective alternative energy subsidies.Posted by: AnonymousIt's a bad idea.
Having this type of power station is not a good idea as its too much pollution and if bad for peoples heath. I have none around me but I used to and they are terrible I had to move because of it was to smoky and it was just horrible.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, we should not waste money and resources towards building nuclear power plants, especially in the developing nations. We can rather use the money towards development and other social and national priorities.
Building nuclear power plants with the country's tax payers' money is not only a waste of national wealth but also a lot of other resources. These nuclear power plants also affect the environment adversely. The emissions caused from these power plants causes immense and irreparable harm to our atmosphere. The time is not far when most of these nuclear power houses contribute to a nuclear warfare which will leave world severely maimed. We can rather consider utilizing this wealth and resources towards an all round of the world and promote virtues like education.
Posted by: SmarterTabbyNo, what we NEED to be building is a better enviornment for future generations.
Not only is it a bad idea to continue the growth of nuclear power plants, but also it will eventually take a toll on our society. Radiation is bound to release into our air a lot faster than expected. We are putting our people in danger and apparently the only thing that's keeping the producers of power plants from stopping this growth is if we end up having an explosion. Why should we wait for something like this to happen? Why not take action now and stop? There are other resources, such as water power, solar power or wind power. Our choices are numerous, yet here we are, using one of the most deadliest.
Posted by: AnonymousI am opposed to building more nuclear power plants because they are dangerous, costly and not efficient.
I feel the way I do because nuclear power plants cost too much money to operate. Nuclear power plants are also a source of potential danger in that they may be attacked by military or terrorist forces. There are many other sources of energy that are more cost effective and safe.
Posted by: JardM0unt4inNuclear power plants should not be built; rather, we should invest in alternative energy.
While nuclear plants may be cleaner than coal power plants, they still create significant pollution to the atmosphere and create risk if not well controlled. The earthquake in Japan earlier this year showed how fragile nuclear plants are and how they pose a threat to public safety should a disaster strike. We should invest in cleaner and safer alternatives like hydroelectric and solar power.
Posted by: SoWinifGeothermal is better than nuclear power.
A brand new 2012 experiment showed that a brand new cheap geothermal plant costing only about 10 million uses about 3 times less land than a nuclear power plant or a coal fired plant. Plus geothermal is renewable, reliable, and can be used for as long as you want. This new test also showed that geothermal power produces more power than ANY other power source.
Posted by: AnonymousSay no to nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power stations requires thousands or even millions of dollar to build a power station and eventually when the uranium runs out then the electricity can't be generated and the money that could be used to make environmentally friendly energy sources is wasted. Also is the uranium leaks then many people will die and it will take more than 10 years to repair the damage on city which will cost a lot of money.
Posted by: AnonymousWe shouldn't be building nuclear power plants, because they're dangerous.
We need to focus on more green energy like hydro,wind and solar. Nuclear is not a good energy. I would rather have coal. At least it doesn't have to be stored in underground bunkers. How do we know that there won't be plate movement and other natural disasters, and even though it doesn't produce carbon when used, there is when it is mined and when it transported to power plants.
Posted by: john_connorWe should not build more nuclear power plants because of the dangers associated with them.
Nuclear power plants are very dangerous in that they can decimate entire societies and, if ignored, maybe even cause an increase in death toll. An example of this was the power plant meltdown in Chernobyl, Russia. The power plant released radioactive material everywhere around it for about a mile radius, killing everything in sight. In addition to this hazard, nuclear power plants also pollute the atmosphere, which can lead to the problem of global warming by decreasing the ozone layer. Research shows that the result of newer extreme heat waves are a direct result of pollution.
Posted by: Charlie IngramIt's time to focus on green energy.
We need to focus on more green energy like hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear is not a good choice for creating power. If we're going to stick to methods that pollute the environment, I would rather have coal. At least coal doesn't have to be stored in underground bunkers. How do we know that there will not be plate movement causing an earthquake that causes damage and releases radiation into the environment? We can't predict natural disasters, so the risk is always there with nuclear energy.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need to consider the disasters occasioned by nuclear power plants historically before building more nuclear power plants.
As we all know, many events involving nuclear plants have happened that have endangered the lives of many, such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. These events also caused pollution and environmental devastation. It would be better to build weaker but safer sources of energy, such as hydroelectric and solar, instead of relying on this dangerous form of energy production.
Posted by: EJLawyerI don't think there should be nuclear power plants because it is harmful to the environment.
There are many risks and dangers in building a nuclear power plant. There could be pollution side affects, or the potential of a disastrous explosion.
Posted by: EImerN4thNuclear power plants are dangerous.
Nuclear power plants may destroy around them when they have some trouble. For example, tsunami by earthquake attacked the nuclear power plant and it radiated a large quantity of radioactivity two years ago in Japan. Nuclear power plants are dangerous especially countries that may happen earthquakes. We should built another power plants like by solar or wind or coal. We should use natural powers to power generation.
Posted by: ayanoNO
No I dont think we should have more power plants because if we have another earthquake so many people could be at risk of high radiation and peoples lives could be in danger for miles to come...
Posted by: AnonymousEnvironment Autism Nuclear?
I have a child with autism and have been searching for better schools. I have noticed there are more children with autism in these very states that have nuclear power plants. I think we need to search this further. They could also further search the states to where they have leaked into the earth.
Posted by: DeeDee1000Are We CRAZY?!
No, no, no! We are beginning to rely on a power source that is far more dangerous than any we have used before. We are giving children cancer and polluting water around the world. We should NEVER have started using a power source that we cannot even control. I am at the point that I feel there is almost no safe place to raise my children because a nuclear meltdown, like we JUST saw happen in Japan, is a possibility for any and all plants. There is nothing safe about nuclear power, and it seems it will never be safe. Radioactivity is NEVER going to be safe, why do we think there is so much cancer in our world? We are not too far gone as a planet, we can still change the way we live. With solar, water, and wind power, why are we putting our entire civilization at risk?
Posted by: AnonymousWe need to focus on more greener energy.
We need to focus on more greener energy, like hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear is not a good energy, I would rather have coal, at least it won't have to be stored in underground bunkers, because how do we know that there won't be plate movement and other natural disasters and even though it doesn't produce carbon when used, it does when it is mined and when it is transported to power plants.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, no more money should be put into building power plants, because we should be developing other sources of energy.
These days, we need to be putting our time and resources into developing alternate forms of energy. We should be working on phasing out power plants, not working on building more.
Posted by: AverageHoward86STOP NUCLEAR ENERGY!!!
Nuclear energy leaves behind a radio active waste which is now being dealt with by being mined under ground!!!! Wildlife is being destroyed by cutting down trees and digging up soil, who knows where its going!!!
The long-standing conflicts over nuclear power and the risks of radiation exposure are nothing new – in fact, the debate over the damaged Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in Japan are similar to arguments happening between scientists, governmental agencies and the public for decades. With the entire northern hemisphere now being polluted daily with trace levels of radioactive isotopes, contaminating everything from water to food and air, it's time to pull the plug on this dangerous form of energy.Posted by: AnonymousWe have other safe alternatives.
We have other safe alternatives. Nuclear power always is financially supported by state so when we count all the costs it is clear that it is not only dangerous but also a very expensive noncompetitive kind of energy. It is untrue thinking that nuclear power plant may be safe. Read for example the report of an Independent Commission established by the Japanese Parliament issued in 2012. THEY SAY VERY CLEARLY the Fukushima disaster was made by people. It was not natural disaster. Refusal of the risk connected with the possibility of tsunami and lack of energy was very expensive for Japanese people living in Fukushima and the neighborhood. TEPCO knew better what could happen in Fukushima and we know what was the result of their thinking.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, just based on my speculations.
Yeah, the main root if cheaper and clean energy. Blink for a second and a thought of something like that will probably be with you. Mainly, we can highly suggest to build those through our words. But look at this side, the side where you actually wanted to build it, the side where people experiences its effects. For example, those Japanese protesters who opposes the re-opening of nuclear power plants in Japan. Just think why they are protesting. They weren't the ones who wanted to build those near them anyways,but the local parl. Just like us, we wish to build more of those power plants but actually hesitates to live beside it. More of, health is the most important above all. Once health is in danger, say bye to your fellow power plant.
Posted by: AnonymousI think that at this point in time we should not build new nuclear power plants because we need to find a way to secure the ones we already have.
I think that until there is a way to properly secure nuclear power plants when an emergency arises, we should not build new nuclear power plants. The funding that would go for new power plants should go towards researching what types of emergency procedures need to be done and to have emergency procedures available for all types of emergencies. Once this is accomplished, it would be fine to build new ones.
Posted by: eyeslikethatWe have other sources!
In other countries, wind, solar, and wave power are being used just fine. This makes our community more clean, more efficient and less damageable. And if disasters happen, we lose our electricity… Whats left? If that happens it takes a lot of time and money to get what we need. But if we use another energy source its easy to get that back without having to spend as much money or time
Posted by: AnonymousWe are not smart enough..
We are not smart enough to take into account every possible scenario and control what happens when things go wrong. I'm amazed that even after Chernobyl and Fukushima ANYONE would even consider nuclear power as a good thing. I'm thinking those people that do have not done any research into the effects off radiation on our planet or any living plant or animal. Nuclear isn't clean energy either.. They use coal to process uranium, not to mention they still to this day don't know what to do with the waste.
Posted by: AnonymousRisk of nuclear War
The Atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima and Another Japanese city killed over 200,000 people and caused nuclear radiation to the survivors causing babies and Japanese citizens to mutate and cause limbs to become deformed. This was the only time in History (that we know of) when a nuclear was used as a weapon, by building nuclear power plants were only supporting the idea of that nuclear power is safe and efficient but history proves the cause (world war 2) and consequence (nuclear bomb/radiation) has no reasonable outcome and shouldn't be massed produced and used as an energy source.
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear power plants are expensive and dangerous.
I am going to be telling you the cons of nuclear power plants and why the government shouldn't invest more money in making them.
1. It is expensive and requires a large initial investment to build.
2. Its dangerous. Despite a generally high security standard accidents can still happen, the more nuclear power plants built the higher probability of dangerous risks.Posted by: AnonymousWe need to focus on more greener energy.
We need to focus on more greener energy like hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear is not a good energy. I would rather have coal, at least it won't have to be stored in underground bunkers, because how do we know that there won't be plate movements and other natural disasters, and even though it doesn't produce carbon when used, it does when it is mined and when it transported to power plants.
Posted by: AnonymousNo nuclear stations
I think that nuclear power plants may cause really serious damages and damages to people and nature. It is radioactive. Which causes serious diseases. Of course I know nuclear power plants produce a huge amount of energy. But this reactor may cause serious problems to nature and people. . .
Posted by: AnonymousThey can cause radiation, contamination, and death.
If we built a nuclear power station and there was an accident, the radiation could spread even quicker all over the world, putting the rest of the world at risk. I think we should use solar power, wind power, and geothermal power instead!! Building more nuclear power stations will put more people in danger.
Posted by: AnonymousDangerous Nuclear Reactors
There are tons of factors that can go wrong like our scientists being careless. The reactors can melt and hudreds or gallons of toxic waste is dumped into the ocean and is killing sea life. No more nuclear reactors for energy. The reactor is also prone t melting which if it does can kill and seorisly them and can cause birth problems with babys. So say no to nuclear power.
Posted by: AnonymousNo to Nuclear
Another reason not to use nuclear power is that, as many people understand, nuclear waste is toxic. Cases such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl are ones that occur in many people’s minds as many individuals suffered from severe radiation poisoning, incurring horrific injuries. Doesnt it seem kind of obvious in the face of such terrible disasters?
Posted by: AnonymousNo, we should not build more nuclear power plants, because they are too dangerous.
With all of the methods to produce clean energy around, we need to start using those, rather than building more and more nuclear power plants. History should be teaching us a lesson. The more nuclear power plants there are, the more dangerous it is to our Earth and ecosystem. There is no reason to continue having disasters that can be prevented by using other forms of energy.
Posted by: PointlessElbert47I AM UNDECIDED
I dont think that we should have them because they could cause death. If you don't pay close attention to them they could kill everyone within miles of the power plant. Which I should add, isn't a very good idea. But I feel they may be a good idea because they don't put Co2 into the air..
Posted by: AnonymousNo, do we use nuclear power because the ruling powers know that our civilization is already doomed?
One only needs to look at the greed and foolishness that led to Japanese regulators giving 10-year operating license extensions to the owner of the Fukushima plants, to find our first reason why we should not be increasing our dependence on nuclear power. Have we forgotten already the awful consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident ? The ramifications of the disaster in Japan at Fukushima are still largely unknown even to recognized experts working in the nuclear industry. They are saying (the operators) that it will take 30 years to clean up the site and make it safe. That is 30 years without another accident or serious earthquake in the area folks. The used fuel from nuclear power plants remains extremely toxic to human and other biological life forms for over 200,000 years! Humans have only existed in their current form for 30,000 years. Need I say more at this point. We haven't even figured a way of storing the waste products from the nuclear power generation fuel cycle yet. Are we crazy or what ?
Posted by: AnonymousGeothermal is better than nuclear power.
A brand new 2012 experiment showed that a brand new cheap geothermal plant costing only about $10 million uses about 3 times less land than a nuclear power plant or a coal-fired plant. Plus geothermal is renewable, reliable, and can be used for as long as you want. This new test also showed that geothermal power produces more power than ANY other power source.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's too expensive and is dangerous in the long run.
Sure nuclear energy is clean with no gases but remember after the uranium fuel is used it is done and dangerous for the environment. All nuclear power plant catastrophes were from design flaw or human error. France may get 75 percent of their power from nuclear energy but they're having a problem with the nuclear waste. So I think it's a good idea but its too costly and dangerous. Until they have safer design for plants it's no.
Posted by: AnonymousWe shouldn't be building nuclear power plant
We need to focus on more greener energy,like:hydro,wind and solar nuclear is not a good angry I would rather have coal at least it won't have to be stored in underground bunker because how do we know that there won't be plate movement and other natural desaters and even though it doesn't produce cabon when used there is when it is mined and when it transported to power plants
Posted by: AnonymousJapan has an abundance of steam
Japan sits on any number of volcanoes. They like iceland could take advantage of their natural resources in the form of steam power to produce electricity not only for domestic needs but to allow them to deveelope industries that are electricity intensive. They could use their abundant steam power to help rejuvenate their economy
Posted by: AnonymousThey are dangerous, and we should be thinking about other sources of energy.
Nuclear power plants are highly dangerous. That should go without saying. With all the threats of nuclear war and bombings on power plants, I think we should start building plants that use other sources of energy, and start tearing down the nuclear powered ones. The earth will be cleaner, greener, and the threat of nuclear war will be lessened. Every little thing makes a difference.
Posted by: 5h4yGloryRadiation produced is harmful to organisms.
Nuclear waste takes thousands of years to break down and has to be stored somewhere. This is hard to achieve without harming life or the planet. The radiation emitted from nuclear processes is high spectrum radiation, meaning that it can seriously harm human and other animal life if it is exposed to them. In the case of a natural disaster (as evidenced by Japan's nuclear meltdown), radiation and risk of death to organisms increases. Sure, nuclear power is efficient and an amazing achievement, but with nuclear waste, risk of radiation, and so forth, the potential long-term cons seem to overpower the short-term pros, such as decreased CO2 emissions. Let us not forget what nuclear power and radiation is capable of, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted by: AnonymousNot totally safe like a lot of people claim
With the inability to predict natural disasters and their magnitude, it is really ridiculous to consider building nuclear power reactors. Yes it is an advanced technology but NO it is not a 'safe' energy as a lot of people claim. Look at the Fukushima crisis that happened in Japan in March 2011 and take a lesson from it. Japan is probably more advanced than the US in terms of technology yet they couldn't protect their country from the catastrophe that is still fresh in the minds of the Japanese people who are still struggling even after 2 years of that disaster. You think Japan couldn't build strong safety measures?! No but it is hard to predict what's going to happen to the plant in the midst of a natural disaster or other sudden and unpredictable events that neither the government nor the people have control over.
Posted by: AnonymousNO.
Nuclear waste that has been building up since the 1950s has still not been disposed of safely, and must be kept away from humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Stories frequently feature in the news about nuclear contamination of the sea and areas surrounding power plants. A report by the Environment agency attacked Britain’s disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40 per cent of them could be at risk within as little as 200 years. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed. [Geoffrey Lean, Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns ‘devastating’ report, The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-waste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html] This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. There is the ever present risk of accidents happening, the after-effects of which can be spread across a wide area by wind, and last for decades.
Posted by: AnonymousWe dont need Nuclear energy
* Nuclear waste (Don't have proper system to dispose of it, will be burden on our next generation, their next generation and so on)
* Emitting more CO2 as compared to other renewable resources
* We need optimization of energy (one part of the world is wasting energy and other part doesn't have it)
* We have to shut down unnecessary industries which are curbing our energy e.g. fertilizer industries (need emphasis on organic farming)Posted by: Anonymous