Nuclear Energy

[Kizzume]

There is a lot of hubbub about whether nuclear energy is safe. Hell no, it's not completely safe, but I fail to see an alternative that offers as much benefit as nuclear energy. If not nuclear energy, what? We eventually won't be able to continue doing things the way we are now--there IS going to be an energy crisis over the next 8 years or so.

How do you feel about nuclear energy, and if you disagree with it, what do you think an alternative should be?

[technocrat]

I love Nuclear Energy. I am Liberal Forum's biggest, most vocal advocate. It's clean, it's green, and it's effective. It's not 100% safe, of course, but I don't see that as a terrible problem. Compared to all of the other realistic sources of energy to meet our needs, nuclear energy provides the best results in a cost/benefit analysis. It's relatively cheap once you get past teh construction/infrastructure costs, and its even less costly when you realize the tremendous environmental benefits. It produces zero green house gases. Today, nuclear power makes up roughly 20% of the total energy we consume, and it prevents over 700,000 tonnes per year of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. It produces little or no atmospheric radiation, compared to things like coal which produces significant radioactive waste and blows it right into the air. I fully support our friend the atom.

I am actually doing a lesson plan for students on Nuclear Energy as part of a social studies interclass unit on pollution. =D

[chuq]

The emissions thing will be the selling point. But if we build all the plants that have applied for permits, where will the by-product be stored? Will the storage be 100% safe from leaching into the water table or the soil?

[Kizzume]

Possibly not. It would definitely be a key factor in the whole thing..... If they can find a way to make THAT element safe, then they could probably be considered safe all around.

[technocrat]

www.ecolo.org/
web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/nuclear.html
www.udel.edu/chemo/teaching/CHEM465/SitesF02/Prop17b/Benefits.htm
www.nei.org/
www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/alt198/nuclear.htm
nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm

zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/phys161.html

These are some pretty good resources on nuclear power.



Edit: I need to correct an error in my post. It's nt 700,000 tonnes, but 128 trillion tons per year of greenhouse gasses prevented by Nuclear Fission. Also: "Without our nuclear power plants, electric utility emissions of nitrogen oxides would be 2 million tons per year higher. Emissions of sulfur dioxide would be 5 million tons a year higher." In terms of CO2 alone: "About 1,600 million tons of CO2 annual emissions" are prevented. Without Nuclear Power, over " 90,000 tons of toxic heavy metals would have been released' into the atmosphere if coal were used instead. Today, the bulk of energy is produced by coal, and people seem to think nuclear power is the problem, when coal releases far more radiocarbons into the environment than all the nuclear power plants combined.


The sad part is that the United States guzzles energy, yet it's far, far behind most other civilized nations in the use of nuclear power. For instance, out of a list of 19 countries, the USA is dead last in the amount of power generated through fission. Lithuania is the top. We are deliberately crippling ourselves.

[Kizzume]

That is one of the most comprehensive lists of sources about this subject that I've ever seen. That must have taken you quite a while to compile that list.

Like I said in the global warming thread, it's quite sad that there are STILL so many people out there who think we (we as in this country) can't make any sort of significant difference. The proof is out there with great abundance, yet we do nothing.

[Kizzume]

Wow--I just saw your edit. What stands out for me the most is-Japan has more than the U.S.? That's insane, in an almost comical way! I wonder how much longer it will be considered the big bad boogeyman.......

[chuq]

We do nothing collectively! Americans see the prob, but want someone else to make the sacrifice. They will always look for the easy way out. Nuke energy is the easiest way out. The people are self-centered and lazy.

[technocrat]

Nuclear power is hardly the easy way out. It's pretty much a necessity, and its not easy to build sufficient reactors. There's no reason to live in poverty if you can actually provide the energy for consumption.