Nuclear Power ? Is it really bad for the environment?

[tricky77puzzle 0]

I'm hearing from a few sources that nuclear power is bad for the environment. I personally disagree, and think that we should try to convert as many coal-powered plants to nuclear plants in the future, although nuclear power is non-renewable. Until we find good sources for renewable power, however, nuclear power may be our best alternative.What is your opinion? If properly contained, is it bad for the environment? (Of course if properly contained. All nuclear power plants have proper containment measures in place.) If so, how?

Edited April 8, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[Tourist 0]

I strongly support that nuclear power is not bad for the environment if we properly use it.Proper use of nuclear power can solve our one of the main problem, energy. Can you imagine a world, where there is no power crisis! Many people do not like nuclear power just for its improper use. But improper use is not the fault of nuclear power, it is the fault of human, who is operating this power. For example Fire, it is most essential for human. But if we use it in wrong way, it may cause severe damage. Is it the fault of fire? Will we give up use of fire for this? No, we will not. Fire has uplifted our civilization. Discovery of fire was so important thing in our civilization. I think proper use of nuclear power may be act as much important as discovery of fire.

[gaspe86 0]

The problem with nuclear power is that to the day we do not have a proper way to deal with the residue or nuclear waste which is highly radioactive. Even though, nuclear energy itself is a more efficient and more environmental friendly in the phase of producing electricity due to the fact that it does not pollute the air... a point in favor in the race against global warming, but the problem resides when dealing with the waste. There is no permanent storage for this waste. The waste comes out of the reaction at very high temperatures, therefore, it most be could down in pools... well, this pools are being over packed with radioactive rods (a great threat because a chain reaction can occur at any moment). Other forms of dealing with the waste are to bury the waste or store it in bunkers, or to reprocess the waste and gain a full arsenal of nuclear weapons.

[Thingcubed 0]

I agree. Nuclear power used responsibly is perfectly fine (the fire analogy was particularly good). I would say however, that we are still not at a point where we can properly dispose of the waste that is created. My personal opinion is that we should just launch it at the sun.While it would increase the cost of starting a nuclear power plant, I think that a part of the startup cost (possibly subsidized by the government) should include the cost of launching a large percentage, if not all, of the waste created when a nuclear power plant is started up. If those costs are included from the beginning, then it will give allow us to better determine the feasibility of switching to more nuclear power. On top of that it will help us determine if it is cost effective to do so. At this point in time it might still be too much, but because of advances in the space industry, and organizations like Google's Lunar X-Prize, I think that we'll soon be at a point where sending nuclear waste into space is a feasible alternative to what we're doing now (stashing it in random places where we think people won't mind).

[csp4.0 1]

Yes, I also had the idea of firing nuclear waste encased tungsten through a gauss cannon at the sun... Though your idea doesn't involve a gauss cannon ^_^Nuclear Power Plants are very safe these days. So that won't be a problem, but the main problem with nuclear power is nuclear waste.Nuclear Power Plants usually have a tank full of cold water with a vat of depleted uranium slowly decaying away...When that vat of depleted uranium/plutonium is considered "safe for disposal" is is then transfered to a nearby nuclear waste dumping site... Where the site then transfers their shipments of depleted uranium/plutonium to a permanent dump site...I don't think that we should go with nuclear fission plants... Currently, we should change most nuclear reactors with "fast-breeder" cores which would reduce on nuclear waste, although for safety they should also change to pebble-bed or helium cooling...We should continue our research on nuclear fusion which would solve all our energy problems... But the scientists are going the wrong way... Instead of doing it the easy way with Helium 3 (He3) they are using Deuterium and Tritium which would be slightly radioactive and not generate as much power as the helium-3, which is also non-radioactive and because it has an extra electron, that electron will be kicked out generating power even before the heat reaches the boiling chamber!Anyhoo... Nuclear Fission reactors are good... for now. We need to change to fusion if we are tosolve our power problems. We should also consider blasting nuclear waste into the sun from gauss cannons, magnetic acceleration coils, or if there is enough power... railguns...

[jopak134 0]

i agree to the nuclear waste as one of the big problems.other minor problems is the maintainance and the technical know how of the personnels.but the only other energy provider that has no waste is geothermal. almost all countries has a active volcano somewhere and this is a good thing

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

See, the difficulty with using Helium-3, although it would be more convenient for the sake of getting things to work, it is very rare on Earth and thus extremely expensive. On the other hand, it's quite abundant on the moon, as the moon dust tends to collect the helium-3 output of the sun, while our atmosphere deflects it. There we go; a good reason to try traveling to the moon and starting up a moon base.