Should nuclear energy be phased out in the USA?

[WarrenPlatts]

Given the numerous externalities associated with nuclear energy including but not limited to

1. Expense
2. Safety
3. Waste Disposal
4. Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack

perhaps it's time to reconsider whether we really need nuclear in the energy mix in the United States--and instead concentrate on other non-CO₂ producing technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro.

Hence the question: Should nuclear energy be phased out in the United States (or wherever your home country is)?

A. Yes, the costs and risks are not worth it compared to the alternatives;

B. No, the costs and risks are acceptable, and we need to reduce greenhouse emmissions.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Can you have simple "yes"/"no" poll choices without having to second guess the voters' intentions (i.e., "because we can't afford to", "because there are alternatives")? It's no use telling the voters what they think, now is it?

 

[Cyrus]

And exactly, what do you propose as an alternative? All the things you mentioned are NOT signifcant enough to replace our nuclear power plants. The fact is, there is NO alternative. As for the terrorism, who cares. Anything is vulnerable to terrorism. They could contaminate our drinking water, let's dry up all our water sources!

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, so let’s come up with what the correct poll would be (a maximum of 10 options):

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy that all countries should have access to until other cleaner/safer sources can become viable.

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy, but countries including the U.S. should only have access to it in accordance with UN guidelines – no double standards.

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy, but countries with “rogue” status should not be allowed access to this technology under any circumstances.

Nuclear energy is NOT safe and NOT necessary. Countries should focus only on other cleaner/safer sources of energy.

More suggestions?

Lord, here we go with another thread... So I repeat what I posted in the last one (I'm losing track)...

 

[WarrenPlatts]

OK, the pro-nuke folks are in the lead 3 to 2. I was hoping to catch someone who would vote for no nukes in the U.S., but is pro-nukes for Iran, but so far people are being consistent.

And exactly, what do you propose as an alternative? All the things you mentioned are NOT signifcant enough to replace our nuclear power plants. The fact is, there is NO alternative.

Current U.S. nuclear capacity is about 100,000 megawatts (DOE).

Thus, 100,000 2 mW wind turbines would be more than enough to replace all nuclear power.

 

[Cyrus]

I already told you it does not work like that. Its not simply a matter of putting these things down where ever you want them. You an't powering a major city with wind farms, it just isn't happening. To be economically justifiable, its not that you just need wind, you need steady constant wind all the time, too slow and it won't work, too fast, and it won't work either. There are VERY few places except along major coast lines that will provide this for you. They are also the places already highly developed. Second, you are NOT going to transmit power from the coast to centeral US, you will loose so much power in the process. Like I said, its just NOT going to happen. They can relieve the energy need, but not all together replace it.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Oh yeah, check out the wind potential for Wyoming!

And here's the wind atlas for the http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/map2.html. As you can see, only the deep south doesn't have much wind energy potential. . . .

 

[deckart]

Now you animal rights folks need to consider all the birds that will be hacked up with these propeller driven generators.

 

[Pengwuino]

The US should accelerate (from 0-60 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ) the construction of nuclear power plants. The proposed alternatives are either more expensive then nuclear power, incapable of adequate supply, inefficient, or a combonation of the 3. Nuclear power isn't great, but it is better then those.

You also need to compare where wind power is capable of being produced vs. where power is needed. Not many people like to live around 80mph daily winds...

Warren, you also tripped over your own foot (besides giving us WYOMING's wind information). Not a lot of people live up in the north west. Also, 100,000 2MW turbines... at probably $4 million each (REAL costs)... well... you get the point.

Also, exactly why do you think nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks? This has already been discussed in the relevant part of the forum.

 

[chroot]

Because this poll is unfair to voters, I am closing it. There's already far too much misinformation and laughable speculation in this thread, anyway. (Let's just plop down 100,000 wind turbines in Wyoming and solve the looming energy crisis!)

- Warren