Nuclear Energy: Pros and Cons

What about the CO2 emissions created during the build of a a nuclear plant? That needs to be allowed for (in comparison to other energy souces) and added to the list of cons

why are there so many more cons then pros?????? <3

i think we just too lazy to replace everything with solar stuff. we have the technology to do it.

1. For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years. Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder reactors, we can have plenty of energy for some billions of year.
Cohen's argument is based on using uranium from sea water. Other people have pointed out that there is more energy in the uranium impurity in coal than could come from burning the coal. There is also plenty of uranium in granite. None of these sources is likely to be used in the next thousand years, because there is plenty of much more cheaply extracted uranium in conventional uranium ores.

High risk? Terrorist attack? If any of you who say high risk is a factor coal power plants cause 28,000 deaths a year. Guess how many deaths have been caused by nuclear power total approximatively 3,000. And if you guys would wake up to relize there are no terrorists and that its just the government than you would have a much better understanding. Nuclear power is the most efficient, but do you think that multi billion dollar corporations will just allow the world to switch to nuclear power?! No!! The only 2 viable sources of energy are nuclear and geothermal. Every one is arguing about the dangers of nuclear power go research how many deaths have been caused by fossil fuel plants do it or your being very biased. BTW no one should be calling anyone else stupid opinions are what make the world go round :)

lol i only need this info for work and let the government decide all this ok dont go ahead of yourself.NOTE: owned by a primRY SCHOOL KID

Another CON on Nuclear is that it requires an extremely precious natural resource; WATER. Moreover, clean and Safe water will become even more precious as we face climate change. Insurance companies long ago refused to insure Nuclear Power plants, and that’s we the Taxpayers on the hook. All in All, the cons of nuclear power far out way any benefit.

hi

boob is a funny word hehe :)

You people make no sense.  You are ALL biased because the cons can outweigh the pros.  Stupid Nitwits. 

The author is obviously anti-nuclear and obviously favors renewable energy. In my opinion, this is a heavily biased article that I can punch so many holes in.

“Known developed technology ready for market.” It’s been ready for over 60 years. Get with the times.

“Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems).” Guess what? The vice versa can be said with renewable energy! The stuff could be spent on nuclear energy instead of renewable energy! Again, obvious opinionated article.

“High-known risks in an accident.” The risk of a meltdown, even a partial one, is extremely low. If you’ve ever researched the safety features that are included in a reactor, you would know how low the probability is. Sure we know about Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI, but guess what? The extensive coverage of such accidents was distorted heavily by the mass media and distorted even further by the ignorant population that believed them. You would not believe how anti-nuclear the media is. Especially ABC.

“Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources).” This is blatantly false. Not only has a terrorist never attempted to blow up a nuclear power plant, there is, a) no evidence that a terrorist group is plotting to blow up one, and b) a terrorist would never attempt to do such a thing. The reasons are simple if you DO YOUR RESEARCH. Any car bomb wouldn’t work, as the several meters of concrete separating the reactor core from the outside world would protect it from such an explosion. It is also extremely difficult, even for experienced pilots, to fly an airplane, especially one as large as a 747, at a very low altitude (100-500 feet), and even more difficult to crash it into the reactor. This is not video games or Hollywood, this is real life.

“Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal,
natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and
produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses)
during all of these processes.” It is true that the uranium mining process produces greenhouse gas emissions, but then again, so does the process of creating renewable solar panels and wind turbines. It is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE that uranium is “just as” finite as dead plants. While coal, NG, and petroleum are bound to rise and decline, much of the uranium has not been mined and lots more have not been discovered. Uranium is expected to last for centuries before it is exhausted, and if we still don’t have commercialized fusion plants by the year 2300, then humanity might as well self-destruct.

“Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.” The author obviously chose the isotope, Tc-99 that has a half-life that lasts the longest  by far and stretches out the half-life. In fact, the isotope has a half-life of 211,000 years, so don’t try to stretch it out to 500,000 years. And by the 200,000 year mark, the danger has (likely much earlier) long passed due to the fact that radioactivity decreases with time. While the statement is true, it is highly misleading.

“There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as
high-temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors,
that are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety
concerns. Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be
deployable commercially for another two decades.” It isn’t a con that a next-gen technology isn’t ready to deploy yet. Likewise, it isn’t a con that Toyota is researching an all-EV car, but is still in the development phase.

“Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential
threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet
with any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount
of waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a
significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.” What is the goal of terrorists? To cause terror, and ultimately bring down civilization. What can a terrorist do with nuclear waste that cannot be used in nuclear weapons? Only Plutonium and Uranium are feasible in nuclear weapons, and uranium is not a waste product. Pu-239 is, but it has been shown that it can be used as nuclear fuel itself. It isn’t waste, it is unused fuel.

While any energy source has its risks, including nuclear energy and renewable energy, the person who created this article obviously needs to go do some more research on nuclear reactors, especially the safety features. Now, I’m not arguing for nuclear energy in this comment, but I am defending nuclear energy against blatantly false and misleading attacks that anti-nuclear groups, especially the ignorant Greenpeace, tend to use.