Nuclear Power Necesarry or Not?

Indeed nuclear energy doesn't release any carbon to contribute in the greenhouse gases besides it's just like you are boiling a water on a kettle. Nuclear waste are mixed with the molten glass and buried in soil to seal up the radiation emitted by the waste.

I think nuclear power is much too dangerous and much too expensive to help us. Let us go back to basics and let the engineers find some other way.

Nuclear power could be a very good source of energy if it is well harnessed. It is quite expensive and quite dangerous to produce and to maintain but it is relatively a clean source of energy. If it is well planned and well maintained, the accidents may be avoided and thus there wouldn't be the fear of radiation leaking from the plants and affecting humans and the environment as a result of error or as a result of natural disasters.

Nuclear power is a form of clean alternative energy source. It is a vital part of our total future green energy initiative to divert our earth away from self destruction by mankind selfishness in polluting it with excessive carbon emmission into its atmosphere. It is alright to use nuclear energy so long as the safety code and procedure is strictly follow and great care is taken into consideration while using nuclear energy reactor. If the producer of the nuclear reactor can exercise 100 % prudence; willing to take great pain to ensure all its worker and engineers carry out their work according to the highest safety protocol and standard according to the professional and scientific association or organization's recommendation, its danger to our environment can be reduced significantly and its risk can be minimized further. Until that happen, it is no doubt it is still consider as the most dangerous clean energy source mankind ever invented and can harnessed.

I also think like you. Nuclear energy can be very dangerous but can be very beneficial depending on us to use it for anything. For example, it provides electricity to a large city like New York or other big cities in the world but it is also true that the danger to nuclear war or a leak like natural disasters in Japan caused so my opinion has two aspects to what is beneficial and harmful.

I've answered this question several times as I am currently taking Energy systems engineering. It is dangerous, but first if people confuse it, it is not a bomb. Nuclear plants cannot explode, only release radiation. Okay, so mainly the concern is radiation. Each day we encounter background radiation. The sun is a really good example of this. Also, their is naturally decaying lead in your body approximately 10 micro-grams of lead per deciliter. This also means you yourself is emitting radiation in a way. Nuclear Engineers, my colleagues will joke that you are more likely to die outside a nuclear plant than inside. The safety protocol of nuclear plants are amazingly high. Before doing or creating any nuclear related tasks it must be practiced dozens of times fixing any bugs in the procedure. Making every nuclear related task 100% safe and perfect. If it wasn't for these safety protocols, the incident in Japan after the earthquake would have been uncontrollable. However due to the high training, it was maintain very well (could have been better a lot, but it was exceptionally well, and everyone must respect the determination of those engineers). But they did what they can with the resources they have. If you are afraid a similar incident can happen somewhere else as Japan, maybe if that model of a power plant still exists. That plant was a BWR, boiling water reactor. A very old design, but it worked. It is an old American developed plant. The plant was only designed to support 2 magnitude earthquake, not 8. Today, Russia, Canada etc. have plants that can withstand high levels of earthquake, higher than what we can anticipate. They have safety tanks, that at any risk will in a way vacuum all radiating materials underground and seal it, all automatically if such risks occurs. Something that old power plant did not have. You can look at the CANDU safety mechanism on how that Canadian Nuclear plant handles the hazardous material in case of emergencies. The reason why they did not change that plant in Japan years ago, because it works, and is still efficient prior to the earthquake. There was no reason for it to be changed. To answer the issue with hot water, not all of that water is released to the lakes, or bodies of water for the nuclear plant. Some runs the hot water through cooling moderators, and sends it back to the cycle. Furthermore, if water is released, the habitat it destroys is nowhere near the same size as Dams (waterfall turbines). Or the habitat destroyed by windmills on the lake. The only way to fix these harsh habitat destruction is for you citizens to minimize your electric usage. These energy sources are simply meeting your demand for electricity. And we all can agree all power sources, fossil fuels or nuclear can have many negative side effects. Keep in mind, 1kg of uranium is about 3 million kg of coal, when it comes to the amount of energy created. If you have any questions, I'll try my best, but I am focused on solar, hydro, wind energies. I am in the same faculty of studies has nuclear science.

Nuclear power is a form of clean alternative energy source. It is a vital part of our total future green energy initiative to divert our earth away from self destruction by mankind selfishness in polluting it with excessive carbon emmission into its atmosphere. It is alright to use nuclear energy so long as the safety code and procedure is strictly follow to the book and great care is taken into consideration while using nuclear energy reactor. If the producer of the nuclear reactor can exercise 100 % prudence; willing to take great pain to ensure all its worker and engineers carry out their work according to the highest safety protocol and standard according to the professional and scientific association or organization's recommendation, its danger to our environment can be reduced significantly and its risk can be minimized further. Until that happen, it will no doubt is still considered as the most dangerous clean energy source mankind ever invented and can harnessed due to the fact that manufacturers seldom follow strictly on the safety rule in order to cut corner to save operating costs.

Nuclear power is a form of clean alternative energy source. It is a vital part of our total future green energy initiative to divert our earth away from self destruction by mankind selfishness in polluting it with excessive carbon emmission into its atmosphere. It is alright to use nuclear energy so long as the safety code and procedure is strictly follow and great care is taken into consideration while using nuclear energy reactor. If the producer of the nuclear reactor can exercise 100 % prudence; willing to take great pain to ensure all its worker and engineers carry out their work according to the highest safety protocol and standard according to the professional and scientific association or organization's recommendation, its danger to our environment can be reduced significantly and its risk can be minimized further. Until that happen, it will no doubt is still consider as the most dangerous clean energy source mankind ever invented and can harnessed due to the fact that manufacturers seldom follow strictly on the safety rule in order to cut corner to save operating costs.

It is too dangerous and too expensive to help us. Let us get back to basics and let the engineers find some other way.

In my own personal opinion, I am against nuclear power. Surely it has its advantages but after what happened to Japan, I'd rather have the government focus its research into a green renewable energy instead of Nuclear. Going natural and finding ways on how you can both conserve and renew it is the best way to go.