The world would probably be better off without nuclear power. It is hard to say one way or the other since we are so used to it being around now in this day and age, but I think it would be a more peaceful world if we did not have it.
At first the world would suffer without nuclear power, however as we discovered and started using more alternative energies the world would eventually be much better off than before. Nuclear energy and power is extremely dangerous and can ruin the planet in a single accident. No world can be healthy with as much nuclear energy running as we do.
Without nuclear power, you would not have had disasters like Fukushima, or Three Mile Island to name a few, nor would you be running the risk of future disasters elsewhere on those levels or worse anywhere there was a nuclear plant. On top of that, without nuclear power, there would be a huge window for many other sustainable, non environment damaging and renewable power resources to thrive.
So from the perspectives of a better environment where cleaner energy would be the norm, and less risk of major disasters with long reaching effects, yes the world would be much better off without nuclear power.
Nuclear power is bad because of radiation. The electrical problem can be solved with all roofes having solar panels and connecting to a smart grid. Of course everything is purely theoretical but I bet it could be possible. Nuclear power is dangerous and uses water for cooling when the water could be used for crops.
The idea of nuclear power is very significant. It is powerful, forceful, and a means of keeping order. But the use of it only causes destruction, revenge, and hatred. There is no end result of nuclear power that ends positively. I do not see it as a means of making the world a better place by it's use.
Nuclear power is the future. There is a lot more uranium than oil in the world, so it won't get phased out for a long time. It's clean, and waste storage issues are really a joke, the amount of space we have where we can safely put waste is more than enough. The two major nuclear accidents that have happened (Chernobyl and Fukushima) where both foolish and could have been avoided. Chernobyl was because of human error (they were running a test, and when things got out of hand the person running the plant decided to keep running the test instead of safely aborting it). Fukushima could have been avoided by putting the backup generators in a safer location, so that they could have kept running effectively indefinitely after the tsunami and earthquake. What the world needs right now to stop global warming is to find a cost-effective way to create clean power, or else companies won't have any real incentive to build clean power plants. Nuclear power is the most economical way to create power without releasing CO2, even taking the accidents into account we are hurting our planet more by using oil and coal plants. Additionally, many people die in coal mines and other jobs related to fossil fuel power plants, many more than have ever died/gotten injured by nuclear power
This is really a moot question, but the short answer is that IF we are to 1) maintain a low rate of harmful emissions, 2) abolish world poverty and 3) prevent the collapse of our own economy, THEN nuclear power is really the only viable option we have. If however we can drop at least one of the points above then we can start to talk about a nuclear phase-out. The problem is that we, and far less The Greens, are even remotely interested in that, which is why this question is really a no-brainer. Instead we should be focusing on future reactors with better safety-systems and better proliferation resistance. Current technology have been around for more than fifty years and much has been made on the future advancements of reactor technology- and design since then.
Our species invested in the wrong element to power our civilization, because alternatives to Uranium were not terribly conducive to killing people. Thorium is in abundant supply in the earth's crust, and molten salt reactors are not susceptible to meltdown in the same way Uranium reactors are. Nuclear power is our future, but it is very unlikely that the element we use to achieve it will be Uranium.
Nuclear Power might not be the safest of energy resources out there , but it is still safer compared to all the fossil fuels put together which cause close to 1million deaths per year .Radioactivity is always there . .Word nuclear generally is considered synonymous with nuclear bomb , radioactivity release which happened in chernobyl killed 58 ppl might have given decrease lifespan to some more ppl and probability of iodine . Alternative resources are relatively fraught with problems of complete reliability and nuclear power is relatively very safe compared to other resources.
I don't believe that the world would be better off without nuclear power. At least not at this time. I think that nuclear power is a clean and cost efficient form of energy. Nuclear power plants also provide a decent amount of jobs. So, I think that the world benefits from it.
I do not believe the world would be better off without nuclear power. I believe we have had a few issues with nuclear power plants that we can learn from and make protocols better, thus making nuclear power safer. I believe it is important for us to seek out as many energy alternatives as possible.
The world is not better off with out nuclear power. We would be better off without a nuclear bomb as weapon but nuclear power goes well beyond just bomb. Nuclear power could be the key to saving the environment in the future. Nuclear power is not a bad thing if used correctly.
Nuclear power is a dangerous thing but it still offers a more viable and clean version of energy for our worlds future. I believe that there needs to be steps in place to keep nuclear power safe, like not installing a reactor on a fault line off the coast of Japan.