Social Question

Linda_Owl's avatar

Should humans use Nuclear Energy to generate electricity?

Asked by Linda_Owl (7748points) December 12th, 2013

Personally, I don’t think that humans should use Nuclear Energy to create electricity & I think that Chernobyl & the Fukushima disaster clearly makes this point. I found a video on the internet (granted, it does not come from a reasonable source… it is an trueactivist post) the Link is as follows

I think that this video highlights the dangerous use of Nuclear Energy to generate electricity. Please watch this video before answering this question.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

marinelife's avatar

No, I think the time span of negative consequences is too great.

ibstubro's avatar

I personally do not believe it necessary, @Linda_Owl. We should be focusing on natural sources like wind, water and sun and reducing the amount we use/efficiency.

Plus, exactly what @marinelife said.

josie's avatar

Why not? It may be the ultimate answer to everything.

Having said it, I am sure at every point in history, when a new revolutionary advance in technology came along, every human hating chicken shit available for comment managed to come up with a reason why it was a bad idea.

No reason to think the opportunity that nuclear presents will be any different.

But I think if people would get on the project now, a century from now all the kinks would be worked out, and it would be an energy dream world.

But I also know that every generation has it’s own version of the Luddites. So good luck.

kritiper's avatar

Yes. We know how to control it safely and it’s clean.

jaytkay's avatar

It’s not ideal. But nothing is.

And nuclear power damages the Earth less than coal burning power plants and the petroleum powered vehicles which can be replaced with electrics.

Newer reactor designs have a key safety feature missing from Fukushima – you can turn off the power and the reactor will safely cool itself down.

When they turned off the Fukushima reactors, and the backup generators were drowned, they had a meltdown.

Those new reactors are not yet online, though. I hope the Germans and Japanese re-think their bans on nuke power., their engineering expertise would be helpful.

ibstubro's avatar

Honestly, I did not watch the video in the OP before I answered. “Urgent” and “activist” scream “propaganda” to me. I clicked the link because I wanted to know how to spell, “Fukushima”.

That said, I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to answer without watching the video. Zillions of gallons of radioactive water.
Held in tanks put together with rubber gaskets.
Connected to rubber hoses.
Stored on a hill.
Above the ocean.
To save the ocean from an unnatural disaster.
Caused by an EARTHQUAKE.

Yes, we have nuclear energy all dialed in.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Events have demonstrated that we have no business depending on nuclear power to generate electricity. The consequences of the Fukushima incident are being both understated and under reported, but those of you who enjoy seafood from the Pacific should invest in a quality geiger counter.

ibstubro's avatar

Nuclear power does less immediate damage, yes, @jaytkay.

Apply coal power vs nuclear power to Shakespeare: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

In a natural disaster a nuclear power plant is a ticking time bomb, a coal fired power plant is a crying shame.

jerv's avatar

@ibstubro I’d take it a step further and say that nobody should answer unless/until they truly understand how nuclear power really works.

How many here actually went to school for reactor theory, nuclear chemistry, or had to memorize the entire schematic for an S5W reactor?

Whenever a question like this comes up, I find the amount of misinformation amusingly depressing.

ETpro's avatar

We should never have let the idiots talk us out of Thorium and into Uranium back when the idea of commercial power generation with nuclear energy was first discussed. Lobbyists made the decision for we the people, and now we’re living with the totally predictable consequences of highly toxic, radioactive wastes poorly contained in crumbling infrastructure that’s too hot to repair.

But we should use thorium for power generation.

Rarebear's avatar

Absolutely. Zero carbon footprint.

bolwerk's avatar

Our current palette of mass energy options pretty much fall between nuclear and fossil fuels. Both have terrible long-term consequences, but the fossil fuels actually finance most of the Very Bad Things that exist in politics today: Islamic fundies, the GOP, Randroids, etc..

I think a case can be made that nuclear should be used while it’s needed, but there needs to be a long-term plan/end game for managing the really terrible waste it produces and stopping our dependency on it. If we’re careful with nuclear waste, we can actual sustain this planet. Oil/gas/coal dependency is literally killing us.

Rarebear's avatar

I agree with @bolwerk, mostly, except for the political comments. We should use nuclear until better options exist. Better than cooking our planet with coal.

ragingloli's avatar

Yes, they should use nuclear fusion to generate electricity.
And technically, solar energy is nuclear energy as well. The Sun is a massive fusion reactor.

ETpro's avatar

@ragingloli As noted above, thorium reactors are a reality right now. We know hove to make them safely and they don’t need massive containment buildings. Ordinary industrial buildings will do. I’m all for fusion when we know how to do it, but we don’t have the technology today.

ragingloli's avatar

Humans know how to do fusion. They have known that since the 50’s.
And they know, how to do it safely.
There are experimental reactors, you know.
They even managed to operate at +-0.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther