Nuclear Energy? What are your views about Neclear Energy
I am against it
but anyway
say why you you are for or against it
and if against it please state other forms of energy that would be better to use and why

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Until some good alternative is available all the other energy sources pollute far more than nuclear.

In the short to medium term unless we use nuclear we stand almost no chance of stopping global warming!!! 33% 2 Votes

Other Answers (6)

• I think all large navy ships should be nuclear powered, along with military bases. They have the money to do the job right and don%26#039;t need to cut corners to save a buck. Reprocessing our nuclear waste we now have would supply the military all the fuel they would need for centuries to come.
  The cheapest way to reduce our need for more energy is to just use less. Conservation has so much potential in the world today we wouldn%26#039;t have to worry about building new power stations. 0% 0 Votes
• I am for it. It can be safe if managed well. Witness the U.S. Navy 100% reactor safety record. There is no reason reactors have to blow up like Chernobyl or even melt like Three Mile Island. And the radioactive waste is no more toxic than the radioactive rock mined to get the fuel in the first place. We can return the spent but still radioactive fuel safely into the ground from which it was taken with existing technology. And the energy production does not emit any air pollution or greenhouse gasses. 17% 1 Vote
• Well, the only two energy that I know that generate enough electricity that are just as good as nuclear energy is biomass ( which can be used to make gas). Biomass get rid of our organic waste. The next thing type of energy is tidal energy and ti could power the whole entire world. 0% 0 Votes
• Nuclear energy does not produce nasty pollutants. It does not belch filth into the sky. If you think a reactor could blow up you are just plain wrong. Nuclear reactors are not the cheapest source of power but for at least in my lifetime they are the best alternative. If nuclear fusion can be harnessed the debate will be over. Nuclear fission does produce some nasty waste that has to be dealt with. 17% 1 Vote
• think of the billions of tons of fossil fuel that we have burned to generate electricity in the last 40 years.
  this would still be in the ground %26amp; available for future use instead of floating around in the atmosphere if we had built the totaly nonpolluting fast breeder reactors that were planned in the1950s.
  the environmental nazi%26#039;s are solely responsible for the position we find ourselves in today.
  
  look up fast breeder reactors on the net 17% 1 Vote
• If I asked you to walk through a snake pit and you said %26quot;That snake is deadly poisonous and I replied that it%26#039;s no more poisonous than the other poisonous snakes in the pit,%26quot; would you feel better about walking through the pit?
  
  The rock that is mined is mostly uranium 238 and is actually processed to concentrate the more active and fissionable uranium isotopes such as uranium 235. Without dwelling much on the process, the wastes are not the same as the mined rock. The wastes can be further processed to make plutonium in a breeder reactor. Again, there is waste and bomb material. Burying the wastes sounds good as long as they are not going to be buried near %26quot;my%26quot; home. I use the term %26quot;my%26quot; to mean almost everyone, except the folks who say it is safe but want it buried somewhere else ... over there. Nuclear plants are generally operated very carefully but there is a great reason that everything has to be perfect. There is little margin for error and once this technology becomes used by %26quot;potential enemies%26quot; we will have absolutely no control over how the plants are operated or how they manage their wastes. We may be on the cusp of losing control already. So, while I think we%26#039;ll need the nuclear plants that are operating for several decades, I think we should investigate solar, wind and biofuels from the mouths of the experts in those areas before spending another dime on new nuclear plants.
  
  However, despite my comments, we will need enormous energy to keep our world thriving. I believe we are on the verge of many breakthroughs in the next few years, so it is imperitive that we attack our energy problem as if we are at war for energy.
  
  Solar and wind energy can be decentralized to provide many megawatts if we just start using our heads and ask the experts. If every new federal, state, university and business building over the height of the trees used solar photovoltaic panels and fed the electricty directly into the grid, we could begin to reduce the need for more centralized power plants. Plug-in hybrid vehicles can actually be charged at night when rates are lowest and the need for power is the least and their electricty could be sent back to the grid during the day as needed. It is called vehicle to grid technology and it is cheaper and cleaner to charge then from power plants via your own home outlet than to buy gas.
  
  There are many more potential ways to begin solving our problems but really ... we have to stop listening only to the fox who guards our henhouse for advice.
  
  Nuclear power is sort of like the perfect parasite. You probably don%26#039;t see, smell or taste its%26#039; presence. If you step into the lake water that is needed to cool the reactor, you%26#039;ll probably notice how warm the lake is but that probably feels pretty good. A parasite that doesn%26#039;t cause its%26#039; host any noticeable symptoms can remain peacefully until it finally becomes to large for it%26#039;s host. Unlike most parasites, this one cannot be treated once the damage is done.
  
  You asked the question, now start searching for answers from the experts. Don%26#039;t rely on my opinion or anyone else here. Start googling solar photovoltaic and other safe energy sources and get vocal. We need to make clear that we want and need it to start right now.