I know that a meltdown would be catastrophic, but that doesn%26#039;t happen very often at all. And the byproducts can be stored in those giant bunkers out west.
There are a handful of reactors in my state already, and they seem to be running without issue. There is some uranium up here in the UP, which would help bring in some much-needed mining jobs, and cheaper energy would really help the auto industry downstate too.
Nuclear energy, from what I know, doesn%26#039;t pollute like coal-powered plants, and it doesn%26#039;t interfere with aquatic biomes in the way that dams do (this is particularly important for Michigan%26#039;s endangered aquatic species, like the coaster brook trout, and its fishing industry). It%26#039;s more dependable than wind and solar and doesn%26#039;t require so many separate units.
Anyway, it seems to me like nuclear energy would be a damn good thing for Michigan. So why are some people so opposed to it?
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (3)
-
The biggest draw back is the nuclear waste, what you referred to as by products..
And you also suggested storing it in big bunkers out west, which to me says that you don%26#039;t want it in you back yard, but wish to ship it to some other state for them to deal with.
I don%26#039;t want it in my back yard either,
Another thing is what happens if terrorist decide to target nuclear power plant instead of large buildings? jcms -
The downside to nuclear energy, if you can call it that, is that it would eliminate coal mining along with all the companies that make money off coal and the jobs of those who mine coal.
That%26#039;s pretty much the only reason anti-nuclear groups were able to get the money to spread their baseless fears. -
The thing some people don%26#039;t know about nuclear reactors is..you can%26#039;t actually shut the core down. Its always on. That%26#039;s what control rods are for, when the rods are out, the core warms water to produce steam that spins turbines. When the rods are in, the rods absorb the energy not the water.
Eventually, these rods absorb as much as they possible can...and need replacing. This is one of the items resulting from nuclear waste. Since the systems we use are enclosed loop systems, there shouldn%26#039;t be a major need for water inlet or outlets, but there are radioactive wastes produced over time which need to be placed somewhere.
The 1/2 life..or time it would take for the radioactive materials to decay away are too long to just pile up on site. I%26#039;ve read about alot of places that have site that the material is kept..and the politics that go with that kind of decision.
Compared to other energy generating methods, it puts out a lot of energy and the energy to waste ration is small. A nuclear reactor can provide a whole city or more, where at wind, solar, all those methods although clean, just doesn%26#039;t have the power to compete in comparison.
The golden rule in reactors that we us in the USA is, NEVER uncover the reactor. otherwise there might be a melt down. and in all the history of reactors, the USA hasn%26#039;t had one. We can not have an explosion like Chernobol because its a completely different type of reactor. And where as their disaster wiped out a few nearby towns, all we%26#039;ve ever had is a little steam released from 3 mile island...which didn%26#039;t do anything and wasn%26#039;t necessarily radio active.