Nuclear Power is Not a Solution to Global Warming

Comments

9 comments posted
Your point is well taken.

Your point is well taken. Nuclear waste is deadly. As seen in the Yucca Mountain controversy, the public is fearful of storage of nuclear waste. The expansion of nuclear power must be addressed with caution.

Posted by Aaron Finestone on March 18, 2009 9:39 AM
Aaron. I'm surprised the

Aaron. I'm surprised the environmental community has been so muted on this. I disagree with Obama on this as well.

Posted by Shai Gluskin on March 18, 2009 2:35 PM
Yes I agree that nuclear

Yes I agree that nuclear power is not the solution to the global warning. On the other side it is also true that nuclear power has become essential power source for every country, so the best way is to follow the strict international standards.

Posted by Adviser travel.justluxe on March 19, 2009 10:08 AM
Y'all are right nuclear waste

Y'all are right nuclear waste is dangerous and will be around for a long time, but you are only telling half the story. The total volume of nuclear waste in the U.S. right now from the past 30 years would fit on a football field if all stacked together. This is assuming that we dont reprocess the waste. 95% of the U in nuclear waste is recoverable. If we recycle, all the nuclear waste would fit in one end zone. I would also like to know what technical background the above persons have.

Posted by Anonymous on April 9, 2009 8:41 AM
Yeah I am 100% agree with you

Yeah I am 100% agree with you that nuclear power is not a solution to Global Warming. Nuclear power is also very dangerous but it is the need of the day, Almost every country is using it for power generation. The need of the hour is that there should be a clear set of rules for every country regarding Nuclear power and each and every country should follow these rules.

Posted by mcsa exams on August 19, 2009 1:04 AM
"Human beings are simply not

"Human beings are simply not reliable enough to husband nuclear energy programs. And though the technology seems efficient by making lots of energy without carbon emissions, we can't forget the waste that comes as a by-product. No one has ever come up with a solution for storing that waste safely."

This is actually false information. The nuclear waste is depleted Uranium; and therefore, cannot hurt a soul. In the 50+ years that nuclear programs have been around, no waste has been spilled or mishandled. 1 pound of U-235(uranium) actually creates as much energy as 6,000 barrels of petroleum.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/wastecontainment.html

I suggest you do a little more research from a founded source before misleading people like this.

-Brandon

Posted by Brandon on February 25, 2010 3:36 AM
Not Depleted Uranium Nuclear

Not Depleted Uranium
Nuclear waste is not depleted Uranium. Depleted Uranium is the by product of the enrichment process. Spent nuclear fuel is comprised of mostly U-238, an amount of U-235 that is slightly above natural enrichment levels, as well as other isotopes of Uranium. Also present are many fission products, reactor grade plutonium and other very long lived actinides. There is no question that this spent fuel is a biological hazard and must be maintained for significantly longer periods of time than wastes generated by most industries. Reprocessing this fuel recycles the reusable Uranium and or Plutonium components back into the power production cycle and greatly reduces the volume of such wastes generated, Further reduction of these waste volumes is an active international research effort that shows great promise. The assertion that spent reactor fuel is a viable proliferation issue is inaccurate due to the in growth of Pu-240. This Pu-240 makes any plutonium present unusable for weapons purposes quite early in a fuel assembly's electrical production lifetime. This Plutonium is however adequate for re-use for electricity generation.

Human beings have been reliably husbanding nuclear energy programs for over 30 years now. Nuclear energy currently provides around 20% of the electricity in the United States. Half of the Uranium presently in these US reactors comes from dismantled Soviet era warheads. Proliferation reversal?

There are pros and cons to most industrial processes. Facts and not fantasy shoud be the only things presented in the discussion regardless of which side of the issue one is on.

gl

Posted by gl on March 6, 2010 10:11 PM
Please take no insult from my

Please take no insult from my comment, I am here to state my opinion, not to say that you are incorrect. While Nuclear Waste is radioactive and difficult to store, after around 4 or 5 years, it is thermally and radioactively safe to handle and transport. This, what you may call nuclear waste, is simply a mixture of elements that exsist only due to the nature of nuclear fission. This "waste" is simply unrefined uranium all over again. Nearly 95% of this spent fuel can be re-processed and then delivered back to the nuclear reactors once again. Completing a cycle of sorts. Nuclear Power in NO WAY contributes to global warming, what some of you may think is smoke coming out of the top of those cooling tower is simply steam, from there that cooled water flows back into a river or ocean.
Take no insult from this, take information.

Posted by Anonymous on October 13, 2010 8:53 PM
As seen in the Yucca Mountain

As seen in the Yucca Mountain controversy, the public is fearful of storage of nuclear waste. The expansion of nuclear power must be addressed with caution.
real soft

Posted by allecthomson on December 18, 2010 3:52 AM