Not until you truly solve the nuclear waste problem in either of exactly two ways: by creating a verifiable demonstration of conversion-into-harmlessness or of absolute safe storage/disposal with zero probability EVER of leakage, volatility, erosion, or any and every other danger that containers have or could have.
Then there's that pesky radioactive waste
with that pesky logarithmic radioactive decay
hundreds of thousands and for some..millions of years..that we will continue burying in Nevada?
And that's assuming there's no oops like Three Mile island or terrorist attack.
So, maybe Wind turbines, and solar and ocean currents, hybrids and improved batteries are a safer bet...
No, nuclear energy is a cool idea. However it will run out just like oil is going to. Energy from the vacuum is the future. If the big corporations stop us at every corner for their profits, then we will have to move on to renewable energy.
Yes, but we need to remember that with the proliferation of nuclear energy plants we increase the risk of transforming any conventional war into a nuclear one.
The 70s designs should be completelly revamped and maybe we should see underground nuclear plants.
Absolutely not. As much of an improvement over current technologies as it is, nuclear energy is simply another form of non-renewable fuel for us to wastefully deplete.
We have renewable sources of energy at our disposal, and more advancements in technology every day.
i think the problem with America is the gun hoe attitude that it presents. The reality is in the coming years America will no longer be a so called "super power" so the more doors they close know the more problems they are going to encounter down the track.
If France can do it on a vast scale, and do it safely, then we should kick up our efforts agressively. It would take the pressure off of fossil fuel prices in the long term by making their supplies / prices less susceptible to manipulation. The byproduct for the US and the West would be more geopolitical room to maneuver to isolate Islamic radicalism.
No! Nuclear technology is dangerous, inefficient, vulnerable to terrorism, dependent (as is oil) on finite resources that have severe environmental cost--and then there's the little matter of isolating large quantities of mixed very toxic waste for 250,000 years or so.
Solar, wind, conservation and other renewable and nonpolluting technologies could easily meet our energy needs.
My first book was on why nuclear power is a really terrible way to meet our energy needs.
Shel Horowitz, award-wining author of and Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First and six other books, http://www.principledprofit.com
10 Total
February 25, 2008 at 1:23pm
Sean McDonaldby "shot" do you mean a shot (like a bullet in the head) or a shot in the arm (aka boost)?
February 25, 2008 at 2:59pm
jeff levingerNot until you truly solve the nuclear waste problem in either of exactly two ways: by creating a verifiable demonstration of conversion-into-harmlessness or of absolute safe storage/disposal with zero probability EVER of leakage, volatility, erosion, or any and every other danger that containers have or could have.
February 25, 2008 at 6:50pm
m eNIMBY...
Then there's that pesky radioactive waste
with that pesky logarithmic radioactive decay
hundreds of thousands and for some..millions of years..that we will continue burying in Nevada?
And that's assuming there's no oops like Three Mile island or terrorist attack.
So, maybe Wind turbines, and solar and ocean currents, hybrids and improved batteries are a safer bet...
NIMBY...
February 25, 2008 at 10:19pm
Tony KayhartNo, nuclear energy is a cool idea. However it will run out just like oil is going to. Energy from the vacuum is the future. If the big corporations stop us at every corner for their profits, then we will have to move on to renewable energy.
February 25, 2008 at 11:27pm
Jerry LasterYes, but we need to remember that with the proliferation of nuclear energy plants we increase the risk of transforming any conventional war into a nuclear one.
The 70s designs should be completelly revamped and maybe we should see underground nuclear plants.
February 26, 2008 at 12:16am
Kyle MarcyAbsolutely not. As much of an improvement over current technologies as it is, nuclear energy is simply another form of non-renewable fuel for us to wastefully deplete.
We have renewable sources of energy at our disposal, and more advancements in technology every day.
February 26, 2008 at 1:30am
michael oliveroi think the problem with America is the gun hoe attitude that it presents. The reality is in the coming years America will no longer be a so called "super power" so the more doors they close know the more problems they are going to encounter down the track.
February 28, 2008 at 9:12pm
E. P. BurkeIf France can do it on a vast scale, and do it safely, then we should kick up our efforts agressively. It would take the pressure off of fossil fuel prices in the long term by making their supplies / prices less susceptible to manipulation. The byproduct for the US and the West would be more geopolitical room to maneuver to isolate Islamic radicalism.
March 19, 2008 at 10:20pm
Shel HorowitzNo! Nuclear technology is dangerous, inefficient, vulnerable to terrorism, dependent (as is oil) on finite resources that have severe environmental cost--and then there's the little matter of isolating large quantities of mixed very toxic waste for 250,000 years or so.
Solar, wind, conservation and other renewable and nonpolluting technologies could easily meet our energy needs.
My first book was on why nuclear power is a really terrible way to meet our energy needs.
Shel Horowitz, award-wining author of and Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First and six other books, http://www.principledprofit.com
March 20, 2008 at 6:19pm
helen chaudhuriwhat does france (and all the other nuclear power using countries) do with their tons and tons of nuclear waste?
Share your ideas