Thursday, May 7, 2009

there has been talk about using nuclear power as another source of energy. some people feel that it is a safe effecient energy source, because of the improvements that has been made. It has been 30 years since the accident at unit 2 of three mile island nuclear generating plant. one of the questions that it mentioned in an article, should we consider using facilities that generate electricity from unranium or some other radioactive fuel. When the chernobly plant in ukraniun had a near meltdown on march 28 1979 along with the explosion, it halted the move toward generated elctricity in the united states. There was only a handfull that allready were under construction 30 years ago. In the united states 104 nuclear reactors generated only one fith of the electricity produced, while other countries are using this technology. They are able to produce three quarters of electricity that they consume. The problem is that some states will see an increase in electrical bills because restrictions are due to expire. People do want to find some long term investment in low cost power. There are arguments on both sides whether we should try it again. People who favor it point to the fact that there are nuclear plants operate safely around the world with no lives lost. people believe that we have created better technology because of the lessons we learned from the accidents and point out that it doesnt pollute the air. The other side of it is there is a potential environment issue. They feel that another accident has the potential to release radiation into the atmosphere. The other problem is long term storage of waste material. There is also a problem with nuclear power because it isnt a renewable source of energy like oil, coil, and it is expensive to build nuclear reactors. so far the federal government has stayed out of it. I think there is always a serious risk when dealing with nuclear power, because it does pose a potential risk to the environment and people. I think one of the things we have to think about is if something seriously happened we cant just go back and fix the damage. i think it would solve are energy problems but i guess we have to decide is it worth the risk getting involved with nuclear energy. I think if we did try it we should try to eliminate as many risks as possible. I think that fear will always be on the back of peoples minds. i think people need to ask themselves would they be comfortable with a nuclear plant next to them. I wouldnt mind trying it if you could eliminate the risk of nuclear power.

4 comments:

tracj23 said...

I think that this topic is really interesting. A lot of countries internationally for one reason or another continue to promote nuclear power and I cannot understand why. The Middle East try to explain that Nuclear Power can be used as an answer to solve the problem of alternative energy. Honestly, I think that it's ridiculous. The long-term problems and waste it creates could cause even bigger problems in the long run. It's almost saddening. If you look in the news all you can see is trying to explain how Nuclear Power doesn't need to be risky, how to help others understand Nuclear Power, but to me it's all propaganda to build new support.

Greg said...

This topic will spur much debate. Nuclear power has a lot of pros and obviously a lot of cons. Chernobyl being the biggest of the cons and the fact that many countries can use the low grade plutonium for nuclear warfare. Going green is an issue the whole world is facing and unfortunately there will not be one way to solve it. Industrialized nations, like ourselves, should continue to use nuclear power as a viable source of energy. Worse comes to worse we could just send the nuclear waste into space and blow it up. If we could get up to 40 or 50% of energy coming from nuclear power I think that would be a great achievement and a good way to give us a little more time to find more viable resources of green"er" energy.

jmvangyzen said...

Nuclear power on paper is great option to utilize because of the energy benefits that it will foster. Personally, I think we need to look at the long term effects of this energy plan. All nuclear reactors are summoned to expire and cease operations after a term limit. In addition the nuclear waste is not biodegradable, and there is no option besides storing the waste underground. There are no methods of containment that would outlast the half-life of radioactive material. Therefore waste storage is more of a problem than a possible meltdown. We have the technology to minimize any nuclear meltdown to near zero, so I guess the really question is do we value the lives of future generations and the problems they would face. This is a highly debatable topic that really has no answer in site. In my lifetime I hope not to see the development of this energy plan but rather expand on the safer sustainable technologies.

zbooher said...

I'd be careful about saying that nuclear waste can only be stored underground. Differing radioactivity levels for different materials (defined as Low level waste, LLW; intermediate level wate, ILW; and High Level Waste) call for different types of storage options. Of course you'd expect some ILW and high level to be stored in geological depositories, but Yucca Mountain was an abandoned project in New Mexico, mind you all. Other organizations like Green Peace and Environmental Defense Fund don't support geological depositories but do suggest above ground storage sites, especially for the ease of transportation of such materials.

Nuclear energy is a viable option for nations who cannot utilize green options to support all of their infrastructure. Safety and security obviously becomes the issue on this, though.