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, lets dry up all our water sources!

SOS2008

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.

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 isnt happening. To be economically justifiable, its not that you just need wind, you need steady constant wind all the time, too slow and it wont work, too fast, and it wont 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 United States. 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 ) 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