 | DrEntropy (38)
03/17/2006 | Nuclear fission is the most controversial alternative power source because it has both huge potential and huge risks: it produces enormous amounts of energy without polluting the atmosphere, but it also creates enormous security risks both for accidents and terrorism. The most important political division in the next decade is likely to be between scientists/environmentalists/politicans who support nuclear power, and those who oppose it. Barring a breakthrough in alternate energy research within the next 5-10 years, the only choice will be between nuclear energy and coal; for all its drawbacks, nuclear power looks like the lesser of two evils.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (168)
09/18/2005 | This has to be the future. What else is there--anti-matter like on Star Trek? We must get moving on some alternative, and this is the most available.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (60)
04/10/2005 |  Maybe at one time nuclear energy was considered a dangerous threat, but I think we need to drop the aversion towards this. Nuclear power creates no greenhouse gases, which due to global warming is a major environmental problem. In the US there have no new nuclear power plants opened since the early 1970's, but luckily there are new ones on the drawing boards. Europe is far ahead of us on nuclear energy and they are correct to invest in this source of energy, especially considering that energy demand is estimated to increase over the next 25 years in excess of 60%! Considering that we've already passed peak world oil production, it is a safe bet that nuclear is the cheapest, safest, and most environmentally friendly source of energy available. There's a good chance that your home is powered by this source of energy, being that 20% of American households get their energy from nuclear sources. In Europe, 75% of households are nuclear powered. Of course there are risks, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island taught us this, but there are almost 500 power plants operating throughout the world today, and most of them have been working for over 50 years now. Other energy sources like coal, which is America's top energy source, kill thousands every year because of emissions. Let's look at it this way, considering this; it seems that we need to reduce our dependence on coal, which truly is a killer. On that front, it seems that they're developing new clean coal technology which does look promising. But nuclear is also an option, especially when considering that this technology has gotten much safer over the past few years with newly designed reactors that are efficient and where meltdowns are no longer a possibility. The reason why nuclear plants have not been built for many years is that petroleum prices were relatively low to the point that nuclear power was more expensive to produce than fossil fuels, however that changes when petroleum prices go up. Long term trends indicate that fossil fuel prices are on an upward trend. In addition to conservation and the development of sources of energy, we need to consider nuclear power as well. Additionally, with the threat of global warming, which indeed is a reality, we do need to move away from carbon based energies to ameliorate the situation. Yes, there is a problem with the disposal of nuclear waste, but that isn't such a big problem, especially against more immediate environmental concerns. Nuclear isn't ideal, but it's the best we have for now.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Guava Monkey (4)
10/04/2004 | er..PBeavr, tell that to people living in the several thousand sq miles around Chernobyl. Nuke power stations also make good targets for al Qaeda etc
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
