Amazon.com Widgets

Is nuclear energy justified and should it be expanded?

  • Nuclear energy should be expanded because of the sheer productivity of it.

    According to Forbes.com, nuclear fission produces roughly 1,000,000 times the amount of energy created by it's coal-based counterpart per unit weight. Couple that with the fact that the waste produced by coal has been discovered to be even more radioactive than that made by nuclear energy. Yes, Chernobyl and Fukushima were terrible incidents but the Chernobyl reactor was poorly built, requiring constant attention to not malfunction. Current generators require constant attention to not shut down. Fukushima also had contingency plans, but they were centered around their coolant pumps being operational. They didn't expect an earthquake/tsunami tag team...

  • Nuclear energy should be expanded, because of its ability to provide an alternative source of fuel, so we can be less dependent on fossil fuels.

    Nuclear energy has the ability to give us a virtually limitless source of energy. Yes, the science is still in developmental stages and requires energy put in to get any out. But, in time, we should be able to master it. There is no doubt that oil is going to eventually run out and, when that time comes, we are going to need an alternative fuel source.

    Posted by: AbackOmer93
  • Nuclear energy has consequences and problems but it is a legitimate source of energy that could provide benefits with limited consequence.

    Nuclear reactors do not need to be unsafe, they can be maintained in such a way to be quite clean. Nuclear waste is a problem and so nuclear energy is not a totally clean source of energy, but that waste could also be mitigated by further research. That kind of research isn't going to happen if the potential of nuclear energy isn't invested in as a viable primary energy source.

    Posted by: NikiM5n
  • Yes, nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded because it is a clean energy and would reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

    Yes, nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded because it is a very clean energy, which does not pollute the air. It would also reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The only problem with nuclear energy is complicated disposal of the old fuel rods. We should build more nuclear power plants, because accidents are few and far between.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • Nuclear energy is justified in the United States and should be expanded within our barren areas.

    Nuclear energy is justified in the US because there is growing demand for energy and this option provides a clean domestic source. However the plants should only be located in barren, unpopulated areas and should be protected by military and law enforcement teams. In addition the engineers and managers of these plants should be military personnel from the US Navy. Energy security requires secure personnel.

    Posted by: 54mP5KryPto
  • I think nuclear energy is justified and should be expanded.

    Nuclear energy provide a complementary source of energy that would reduce our dependence from foreign oil and benefit national security. Furthermore, modern nuclear technologies have very little environmental impact, and do not contribute significantly to the emission of green house gases, thereby contributing to a solution of the climate change problem.

    Posted by: jabular
  • Nuclear energy is a reliable source of energy that does not contribute to global warming.

    France uses nuclear energy to provide a large portion of their electricity grid. They standardize their design for each unit so that the procedures for each one is exactly the same. The United States should do the same. Nuclear energy produces electricity with no carbon released to the atmosphere. The main problem is public relations after the problem that Three Mile Island had 30 years ago but the industry has learned the lesson to avoid future problems.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • Nuclear energy is the only currently feasible source of enough energy to run the planet.

    Nuclear energy is not ideal. Nuclear fission produces radiation, and produces radioactive waste. There is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown or explosion, and the waste can remain active for millions of years. All of that being said, nuclear fission is a miracle! We can produce amazing amounts of energy with very little fuel, and practically no carbon footprint. The tradeoffs are real, but justified, and nuclear should definitely be expanded.

    Posted by: Iuk45Grinder
  • I believe nuclear energy is justified.

    The government should use nuclear energy. They also should expand it. During this recession we need any break possible. The government should use anything that will benefit us, as long as it will not damage us even more. I believe they should at least keep using it if they will not expand it.

    Posted by: barbiegirll
  • Nuclear energy will be justified in the future so long as the public continue to refuse to adapt their energy consumption habits.

    People need to understand the concept of peak oil. Energy needs to be expended to get to the oil. Once the easy to get oil runs out, it becomes a cost-effective analysis to determine if the harder to reach sources of oil justifies the energy required to extract it. It obviously doesn't pay to spend more energy to get the energy. Crude oil has a finite supply, which means the days of cheap oil will soon be over with our current modern rate of increasing consumption. As no sustainable alternative energy systems have been developed to face this emerging crisis, eventually, there will be no choice but to build more nuclear plants or face a disruptive lifestyle like continual rolling blackouts. Nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind energy all currently have their inadequacies whether it's in portability, storage, or transmission. In the future, they will all have to be put into play despite their shortcomings because all of them together probably will not be enough to satiate the global demand.

    Posted by: WarmOsbe
  • Nuclear energy causes pollution and should be kept at a minimum.

    I believe that nuclear energy has been known to cause bad benefits to the air and can be hazardous to health. It contributes to pollution building up in the atmosphere and can be harmful if inhaled. It may be effective for energetic uses but it still has a lot of flaws and it isn't natural to be using for everyday usage among civilizations around the world. In the future they could cut down on it and work around it using other ideas. That would be more of a thought process than using nuclear energy for human consumption

    Posted by: waffletime
  • Ch I n g cong china

    Jujjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj j nj zx c s sfadsf a sfdfsda dfs fds as dfsa fds fds fds sdfa sfd sdf sd sdf dfs sdf dfs dfs dsf dsf sdf sdf dsf dsff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

  • Ch I n g cong china

    Jujjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj j nj zx c s sfadsf a sfdfsda dfs fds as dfsa fds fds fds sdfa sfd sdf sd sdf dfs sdf dfs dfs dsf dsf sdf sdf dsf dsff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

  • It definitely shouldn't be expanded!

    It isn't even a renewable energy source and will run out one day! It's harmful to everyone on this earth, and even though it provides us with all the energy we need, it leaves a huge pile of radioactive waste behind that we don't have a solution for! There are other energy sources we can use other than this terrible nuclear!

  • GOD NO! Nuclear waste has to be baby sat & "maintained" for MILLIONS OF YEARS and the costs far, FAR outweigh the short term benefits.

    Then there's THREE MELTDOWNS that have occurred just during my lifetime! Chernobyl, 3 mile island and Fukushima. The WORSE effects of the recent Japanese meltdown may very well be on their way as we speak. "Nuclear energy is clean and pure" is an OUTRIGHT LIE! There are FAR BETTER OPTIONS. Hoover dam has been going 24/7 for the last 80 years! Hydro power that is almost a century old! No meltdowns. No waste to babysit. Was chugging away LONG before the first nuclear reactor was ever built and has been going LONG after the first nuclear nightmare was taken down. It cost MORE... FAR MORE TO TAKE IT DOWN and store it than the energy it made. WE ARE STILL PAYING TO BABY SIT IT AND ALL THE WASTE IT PRODUCED DURING ITS SHORT LIFE TIME!!!

  • There are too many problems with this form of energy to justify it.

    I oppose the justification of nuclear energy purely because there are so many disadvantages concerning the production of this energy. Firstly, there is no way to store the radioactive waste in such a safe manner that will ensure that it will never cause any damage to the human race. Secondly, we have all heard the news about the accidents that have happened in the past. Although they seem rare, we cannot be sure when a natural disaster is going to happen, which then causes problems with the power station, and we cannot always be entirely sure that the power station is 100% safe with no faults.

  • We should not expand nuclear energy, due to the obvious risks involved.

    If we haven't learned anything from our mistakes, so far, by using nuclear energy, then we never will. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to expand nuclear energy needs to revisit meltdowns. And, those who think that the problem went away are highly wrong. There is plenty of information for those who seek it, and it proves that, no matter how much times passes, there are still aftershocks of the consequences of using nuclear energy in the first place.

    Posted by: PointlessElbert47
  • Nuclear energy is not justified in any way, especially after seeing what happened in Japan.

    I don't believe that nuclear energy has any justification in our world today. There are too many alternative energy sources that are completely harmless to humans and the environment. The alternatives are better for humanity.

    Posted by: AboardTod
  • No, because nuclear energy is no good for anyone.

    Nuclear energy plants create nuclear waste. Water becomes so highly toxic that it can not be anywhere near anyone. This remains radioactive, effectively, forever. The only thing to do with this waste is bury it and hope for the best. There are far more effective forms of alternative energy, such as solar and wind, that should be explored.

    Posted by: MarriedKelvin72
  • Nuclear energy is not justified, because the risk for disaster is too great.

    Nuclear energy is something every nation now wants to have or get involved in. Look at the disaster in Russia, and now with Japan. We know the consequences of a nuclear disaster, so why even mess with it? What we need to do is concentrate on getting food to famine-struck nations, and doing everything we can to stop global warming.

    Posted by: StripperMor

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.