Think of all the oil wars we could avoid if we went nuclear, maybe. The country of France has like 70% of its electricity generated through nuclear power plants, and we could do the same and drive electric cars; getting rid of coal at the same time.
Yes, we should use any alternative source of energy we have and invent more. How is this even a question?
so you want to use more nuclear to power electric cars. hmmm, isn't electricity storage the problem with that logic?
I think the wisest approach is energy diversity (which is what we're headed to anyway), so we're not relying overly much on any one particular method of producing energy. Some nuclear, some oil, some gas, some coal, geothermal and hydro where you can get it, wind when it's blowing, and so on. Then, if there's a crisis in one source, you can shift focus readily to another. That should probably mean more nuclear generation, but I think France might be in a risky position relying on it too much. I do think switching to electric cars should be the future though. Our power generation is diversified, but our addiction to oil is because cars and other machines cannot switch to another energy source, so we're vulnerable to idiosyncratic risks in that industry. Using electricity as a fungible currency of energy allows us to switch energy sources quickly. If oil prices spike, we keep on going with everything else.
No, it's not. You can use a system of effecient capacitors and build storage facilities for electricity that pump water during off hours using excess power. You can't build house size batteries, and I don't know how an electric car works but they've been built.
Nuclear energy and its pros and cons have been discussed ad nauseum since the 70s. Until Americans don't change their behavior to be more energy efficient, then no alternative solution can truly replace the status quo. Just today I saw my nephew's friend leave his laptop, TV, and A/C on saying when he comes back home hours later, it's nice to not turn the devices on Here's some cons: * The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). * High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature. The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. * Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. * During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). * The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. * The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. Also it's extremely energy intensive just to build a nuclear plant.
I'm pretty sure radioactive waste isn't a big deal. Volumetrically speaking, a nuclear power plant in two years produces enough nuclear waste to fit in a storage closet, though I could be mistaken Yes, nuclear waste is very harmful but other than waste water it does not contact the outside environment unlike gasoline and coal. Far cry from that. There are two different isotopes of uranium used in two different reactor types. Breeder reactors can use the more abundant type, which makes up 99% of all uranium reserves, and could last the world for another several thousand years. What is this time you speak of? As though we don't have enough.
Wrong. Irrelevant. Wrong or misleading. Nuclear waste has contacted the environment. More importantly, keeping it from contacting groundwater/air/soil is the real problem here, particularly given the timeframe. True, and they create less waste. But they are also more expensive and harder to operate. Time and money are factors that need to be addressed.
Once nuclear waste seeps into ground water table, that spot (and the people who depend on it) are more or less ****ed. Stuff is harder and more expensive to partially extract than cancer causing chemicals.
Maybe I made the issues too small, but they can be overcome. Yes, misleading, if a nuclear plant leaks or blows up it can do a lot of harm. But not impossible. I also think in the 80's nuclear fuel recycling was banned by congress, further decreasing the effeciency of current nuclear fuel. Time and money are factors because nobody is putting time or money into the idea. I wouldn't think this could happen over night but it almost certainly did. From the 50's to the 70's the US built a lot of nuclear power plants. No reason that we couldn't build more since they only produce 30% of electricity the US consumes. Oil wars have caused tens of millions of casualities and cost a lot of money, too. I think nuclear energy would be far less harmful.
