Yes, and I think they always have. And in an ideal world, I'm all for nuclear power. But this isn't a perfect world, and I fear the type of people who will work at the plants will be of the Homer Simpson variety, and while I might be a tad to jaded and untrusting of my fellow man, it is a large responsabilty tearing apart the fabric of the universe for energy.

I am by no means a Coalie, but I see the energy supply running dry for a few years before they crank up the old generators, if they don't have to be scrapped altogether due to them effects of time on the machinery. I'd like to see us switch to LEDs for all sources of light first. Though, if we switch to nukes early, we'll probably avoid the second depression.

My opinions, since you asked.

I love that blue glow. It is truly eerie to see in person. Nuclear power is not going away. I think the energy market would crash if it went to all solar tomorrow. And it would be more expensive. Making solar panels is expensive and not exactly friendly for the environment either. If we stop the once through method of fuel and reprocess, there would be less waste and more energy. Maybe we should put nuke plants in space and beam down the energy, just dump the waste into space, towards the sun.

Just to clarify my position a little on nuclear energy-

I think alternative forms such as solar, wind, wave, biofuel etc. should be used and developed as much as possible for specific locations- with the end goal of creating a society that does not exceed the energy capacity of a geographical area (much like the rest of life on earth). I'm a fan of thorium because it is potentially a 'better' technology then existing nuclear power facilities- Ideally we would not need any nuclear power for normal operations- but I don't see that happening anytime soon, and thorium offers considerable benefits to coal, or other fossil fuels, that will help us during the transition without leaving us with a long-term problem.

Lastly, there are places where alternative energy is harder to develop- say on Mars or in space. Thorium powered spacecraft sounds better to me then Uranium powered spacecraft- as the waste products are easier to maintain and even utilize. (we do have nuclear powered submarines already- none of them use thorium yet as far as I know).

I completely agree with Tim's comments.

Nuclear power is vital. We are just scared by its potential. I think a lot has to do with soviet disregard for safety and doing things right. I am somewhere between #3 and #5. At this moment, it is a necessary evil, but I have hope for the future. Also, the only realistic means of long distance space travel (interplanetary, even intersolar) is with a reactor. Solar panels and rockets work, but only to the extent that fuel and oxidizers last, and the sun's rays stretch.

What a wonderful site. I am teaching a grade twelve Energy and Mines course to 12 very environmentally conscience students. A majority of our course will be dedicated to the study of uranium as a source of energy for the future. Living in northern Saskatchewan, Canada we are within arms length of the world's richest ore deposit (17%) at the McCarthur River mine site. My class and I will be flying up to Key Lake courtesy of CAMECO corporation to see first hand how uranium is mined and to check out the companies environmental safety policies.
Based upon the tremendous growth in exploration company activity this winter and from the reports that even more uranium deposits have been found I can say that this form of energy will be around for another 250 - 300 years. So let's hope that engineers and scientists can determine how to better utilize the 95% of this energy that is still not tapped through the fission process.

We environmentalists must rethink our opposition to nuclear power. Those who have opposed the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. over the past twenty years have actually forced the use of a filthy alternative--coal combustion--that releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, here in Europe, countries like France have forged ahead with the construction of nuclear plants using modern and safe technology developed by the Americans.

Worried about radiation? Then help us to do something to shut down the source of energy that is releasing tons of radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium--into the atmosphere every years. Nuclear plants? No, coal-fired plants. You can read about it here:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Nuclear energy is simply a step closer to cleaner energy. It is much cleaner than fossil fuels - especially to the atmosphere.

We are going to produce power from a wide variety of cleaner solutions, and for the next 20-40 years, nuclear will be essential. Japan and China, as well as India, are banking on it to help with their rapiidly groing demand. It is simply not realisitc to tackle Global Warming, at this present time, without nuclear in the picture.

Every dollar we spend on nuclear is wasted money we could have used to build more wind farms, solar power, cfl lightbulb factories, etc.

Wow, environmental racist within the environmental community. Those of you who think nuclear power is the way to go, or make comments like, "only in the mining" like it some how doesn't matter, probably don't even realize how devastated indiginous, poor, and other communities of color are impacted by this nuclear stuff on the front and back ends of the fuel cycle. Or, maybe you just don't care as long as you get what you want and the devastation to people, the earth, water, and sky are not in your back yards. Amazing. Another generation of elitist trying to play like they really care about people and the environment.

How about 'First Do No Harm'.

Peace & One Love
Dianne

Hi,

With regard to the spent amount on this nuke powered plants and usage of the product if we limit it to making only one programme which is useful to the mankind in the coming decades and centuries then we will see a good turnout of events. A best example is use this power in changing sea water as highly enriched higenic drinking water. Ofcourse now there is such procedures like desalination but I think adopt this nuke power in its place and no other place except this.

I tell you, you greenies make me laugh. With your better than thou statements. Your are against coal,oil,natural gas,nuclear, and hydro. Yet when companies and individuals try to bring alternatives on line you fight their implamintation at every step. Wind wont work it kills birds and ruineds the veiw, niodeisel wont work it causes deforestation. What do you want? Do you think living in the 16th century was so great? I hear from many of you we have to get our population under control, so you advocate abortion. Hey iI have an idea how about volunteering for population control youselves.

PS. even wood isnt liked by alot of you, cause too much partical polution. GIVE ME A BREAK.

"you greenies make me laugh. With your better than thou statements."
"implamintation"
"Do you think living in the 16th century was so great?"
"you advocate abortion"
"how about volunteering for population control youselves"
"partical polution"

~~~~~

It can't be said enough - make sure your children get a good education. Look what can happen.

I find it ironic that the environmentalists who opposed building nuclear power plants (and successfully ended the industry till now) are now being found guilty of destroying the environment and CAUSING nuclear radiation being released into the environment!!!

Now most people the world over know that nuclear power will save the earth and us. Let us all keep reminding everyone that.

Not that solar, wind, and water power (hydro and from the waves) aren't a very important part of the picture. They're all needed. But nuclear is the only one that can do the bulk of the job. The others just fill in the gaps and help out.

I love how people don't realize that nuclear technology here in America is nowhere near where it should be. In the 70's with the environmental movement beginning strong (which i support completely except for their stance on nuclear) nuclear development was halted. We have the technology to reprocess fuel so that the fuel cycle would be completely different from our current terrible nuclear waste problem. We even have the technology, right now to build IFRs (integrated fast reactors) that could power our entire country for 500 years on our stockpiled, non-fissile u-238 as well as reprocess all of our already created nuclear waste. These reactors have passively safe designs that will completely shut down with no input from operators or computers and with no electrical power. they have been tested in loss of coolant (the most serious accident in a nuclear reactor) and they have shut themselves down completely with absolutely no damage to the reactor. The waste at the end of the fuel cycle would consist of manmade isotopes that would decay to natural radiation levels within 200 years. We had this type of reactor operational in the mid 80's but public fear of nuclear forced the funding to be cut completely by the mid 90's. I fear pollution and climate change more than the nuclear reactor (that i live 10 miles from) ever melting down.

Wow, I didn't realize the proopaganda machine worked so well. Nuclear power is a disaster. The environmental and human health impacts are enormous. It is way more expensive than solar or wind. The French public has recently been polled and they overwhelmingly reject new investments in nuclear power in favor of investments in solar and wind. It may be favored by industry types because it allows centrallized control of our energy grid (solar and wind are much more modular). Also the time it takes to get new Nuke plants up and running makes them unlikely candidates for a quick fix. So I find it shameful that so many people who should know better can't see these obvious drawbacks to this wasteful and dangerous energy source.

By the way I am a big fan of the blue glow and do support the maintnance of research reactors.

Like it or not, there are nuclear plants already in the first stages of construction in the US. Current plants do not require operator action to scram the reactor in most casualties. Furthermore, there are at least 2 independent trains of safety related equipment making the failure of the plant to respond as designed very unlikely.

I know a lot of you are concerned about safety, but the threat has been overblown by the media and hollywood. Chernobyl was a terrible design and they were testing in violation of their own guidelines. Three Mile Island was an unfortunate event that was mistakenly diagnosed by the operators at first. Yet this event did not kill a single person. There were industry wide changes following the incident such as upgrading design, training for operators, and adding more safety equipment.

The big problem I see with the nuclear industry (I have worked in it for 8 yrs now) is that our current plants are almost all different. The new generation of reactors are all designed as being brought in and being assembled on site. This would make the plants the same and also alleviate the problem we are having getting parts for maintenance of 1950's technology since there will be other plants that actually use the same equipment.

The other problem is finding operators/ engineers/ craftspeople and getting them trained to work in the plants. We have the ability to do it. The US Navy takes 18 year olds off the streets and trains them in nuclear power for 2 yrs before sending them into the fleet. It works, I know I am a product of it.

I agree that sustainable energy sources need to be involved and more mainstream. But nuclear power could be the way to buy us some time to find the save all solution we are all looking for.

Well GM is on board have you seen there new commercial nuclear powered vehicles yes we know how it just classified work is all! Alot of the nuclear power plant's you think about are from the 60's old! The General

General Motors is investing hard in a nuclear future we will bedesigning everything for them cars,trucks-Hummers etc Classified The Gen Puckett

Every dollar we spend on nuclear is wasted money we could have used to build more wind farms, solar power, cfl lightbulb factories, etc.

May 3, 2007 9:48 AM | flag a problem

^^^This is the correct answer and you all know it.

The world cannot rid itself of Nuclear Weapons by establishing more Nuclear Power...

Nuclear waste is very long lived, does any one really have a safe means for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel ?

From what i have read - NO !

Already the French have leaking nuclear waste disposals sites.

Germany I have read had a similar problem in the salt mines.

Is it exceptable to dump nuclear waste in Russia unsafely ?

Is it aceptable to dump nuclear waste in the ocean unsafely ?

Once the nuclear fuel from nuclear weapons has been depleted from U.S stockpiles, nuclear fuel will of course get more expensive. I

Is U-235 really clean if coal is used to mine, mill and enriched it into a usable fuel ?

Also those huge dump trucks that cart uranium ore with their massive diesal fuel tanks - are they not burning fossil fuels that contribute to global warming ?

All through the processing of uranium to the uranium fuel pellets in those fuel assemblies - do they not use vast quatities of energy produced from coal ?

Radioactivity is odourless, colorless and invisible is this relevent to its lethality !!!

In light of Chernobyl disaster, can we really afford to have another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl meltdown that will release radioactivity into the enviroment at a similar scale to what happened in Europe ? How many can we have ? 1, 2, 3, 4 How many is exceptable ?

Can you really believe that we will never have an accident over the next 50 ~ 100 years on the same scale as Chernobyl ?

There are those that say Chernobyl was sabotage, can we assume that this won't happen again ?

Walter Russell's "Atomic Suicide" will cure anyone who thinks nuclear is the answer. He was the TRUE scientist who discovered plutonium. He bult a hydrogen engine over 50 years ago and showed it to NORAD. Hydrogen is the future. It's cheap, plentiful and clean. This is why we STILL don't have it. Russell was an American genius who was wiped from our history. He was considered another Leonardo Da Vinci, and most Americans have never heard of him.

For all the people saying that we should invest in renewables only, you need to look at Denmark below the surface. As an expat living in the country I've noticed that Danes HATE and I mean HATE their windmills. They cost a fortune, and they don't reduce CO2 emissions because they have to have thermal power plants on standby to provide power if the wind is not blowing. They import most of their electricity from Germany's nuclear and thermal plants!

Greens are always quick to point out that nukes are subsidized, but compared to renewables which require enormous subsidies from rate payers and taxpayers alike, nuclear power is cheap.

Being anti-nuclear equates to being pro-coal in my opinion. Because there is no baseload alternative for today's energy needs.