Nuclear Power Pros And Cons: Is It Key To America's Energy Future? (PHOTOS)

To some, nuclear energy is a ticking bomb. To others, it represents the future of an energy-independent and carbon-free America.

Is nuclear power a viable and safe option for generating electricity? Check out the pros and cons below, and come back November 16th at 2PM EST for a lively debate between Erich Pica, president of the environmental group Friends Of The Earth, and Stewart Brand, co-founder of the Global Business Network and president of the Long Now Foundation.

1 of 7

Con: Its Safety In Question

1 of 8

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

With two reactors shut down in the same day this month, it makes us wonder, will they ever really be safe? Besides just the frightening idea of human error and the failure of aging plants, there’s the prospect of terrorists exploiting safety loopholes. Pictured are officials inspecting damage from a fire in a Japanese nuclear facility that broke out in 2007.

Dried Salton Sea Could Produce 'Clouds Of Toxic Dust' Under San Diego Water Authority Plan

Earth Day Activities For Kids 2012: Crafts, Games, Recipes And More

Gulf Oil Spill Anniversary: Spills Around The World Since Deepwater Horizon

Climate Impacts Day: 350.org Campaign Connects The Dots Between Extreme Weather And Climate Change

gadgets/slideshows/221797/slide_221797_891418_small.jpg

Earth Day 2012: Events Around The World

Green Shipping Tips: How To Send Eco-Friendly Packages

With two reactors shut down in the same day this month, it makes us wonder, will they ever really be safe?

Besides just the frightening idea of human error and the failure of aging plants, there’s the prospect of terrorists exploiting safety loopholes.

Pictured are officials inspecting damage from a fire in a Japanese nuclear facility that broke out in 2007.

comments(1366)

Total comments: 1366 | Post a Comment

1 of 8

Pro/Con

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Whatever Very Important!

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Most Compelling Pros/Cons

loading...

Most Compelling Pros/Cons

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[fireofenergy]

08:53 PM on 01/14/2011

What about closed cycle fission of spent wastes and thorium in a molten salt reactor?
Also known as a liquid fluoride thorium reactor, appears to have FAR greater potential than the {pressurized} water reactors we use today.

[iDM]

05:34 PM on 01/12/2011

We need nuclear power from fusion, NOT fission. Fusion is clean, safe and does not produce any radioactive waste. Funding must be given to fusion research (ITER, for example) so that fission can be eliminated and the world can benefit from a truly sustainable and eco-friendly energy source.

[b525]

11:44 AM on 12/25/2010

Nuclear power is often promoted as "green energy" even though nuclear reactors must be built near rivers, oceans and lakes to provide cooling water for the super-heated reactor cores which will rapidly melt down if not cooled by water.

Knowing this, we can be quite sure that the first thing to be contaminated with radiation(possibly for hundreds of years) from a nuclear meltdown would be nearby river, lake and ocean waters and the life that lives in these waters....in other words....our drinking water supply and the world's fisheries. (most ocean life lives in coastal waters....when you get away from coastal waters the oceans are much like deserts, with far less significant life).

The mining of uranium is highly polluting and has destroyed many streams, creeks and rivers worldwide. Uranium mining is highly dangerous and has sickened many mine workers with radiation poisoning. The mining waste (called mine tailings) is often dumped into river valleys and is exposed to rain and elements causes mining chemicals and radioactive materials from the waste rock to wash into watersheds.

There is currently NOWHERE in the U.S. to store nuclear waste, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste sits around nuclear plants in the U.S.
If a waste site was developed (likely under Yucca Mountain in Nevada), it would take 30 years to transport all the existing waste there, across country and by truck.

[Michael Mann]

08:42 AM on 12/28/2010

If nuclear is not "green" then neither is solar or wind as all impact the environment in about the same amount per energy produced. There is no perfectly green energy source, but nuclear has proven to be safe, clean and reliable over the last 40 years, with lifecycle environmental impact smaller than any fossil burning source of energy. Any true environmentalist should see nuclear power as the "green" alternative, until all the fossil plants have been shutdown and something better is found. Energy choice should be made on fact, not fear mongering, understand the facts and you'll see nuclear energy is the best choice.

[Michael Mann]

04:15 PM on 12/28/2010

Nuclear power is "green energy" at least as "green" as solar and wind energy. If you look at the entire lifecycle, nuclear power has a smaller environmental footprint per unit energy produced. It is clearly better than any fossil fueled energy source. Nuclear power has been safer, cleaner and more reliable over the last 40 years than any other means of producing power so of course it should be considered "green" energy. Knowledge should prevail over fear.

[Rich Phitzwell]

06:35 PM on 12/16/2010

Coal releases more radiation into the environment than nuke.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

We can reuse much of the spent fuel, sure some waste but a bit of it can be enriched again reducing the waste issue. additionally there are reactors that are being developed that can utilize natural uranium. Not quite there but its getting close.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/energy/iaea/seminar0902/nfc.pdf

If we decided today to be lets say 60-80% nuke using one or two standardized reactor designs in 15 years the cost per plant would drop significantly.

Theres potential for the waste steam to be used to grow algae on a grand scale as well as produce hydrogen allowing for massive hydrogen based fuel depots.

The only reason we do not have enough engineers is due to the industry being at a standstill for 30 some years, reinvigorate it with a massive building program and they will come back.

We have all our uranium in house, this would stop the billions flowing to countries that are not too keen on us.

We have learned a tremendous amount since 9 mile, the two reactors that were shutdown had nothing to do with the reactors, but we have learned a bit on designs to minimize corrosion and brittling of the metals and so forth that the older designs had to deal with.

Between coal and nuke, nuke is far better.

[Michael Mann]

04:29 PM on 12/19/2010

@Rich
I agree with almost everything, except 9 Mile isn't doing too bad even today. I think you meant 3 Mile Island 2, where the "Nuclear Disaster" (which didn't injure anyone) occurred. Nuclear energy is our best hope for a safe, clean, prosperous future.

[fireofenergy]

09:08 PM on 01/14/2011

Agree 100% (except for picture lol)!

[dbmetzger]

02:15 PM on 12/04/2010

India seems to think it is
India Now Has 20 Operational Nuclear Reactors
India's twentieth nuclear power plant has become operational at Kaiga, taking the total installed atomic power capacity in the country to 4780 megawatts. Only six countries in the world currently operate 20 or more nuclear reactor. http://www.newslook.com/videos/269594-india-now-has-20-operational-nuclear-reactors?autoplay=true

[thatboyzachary]

02:23 AM on 12/02/2010

Pretty much all of these one-liners are wrong, and distort complex systems into ideas that make sense but aren't true.
Safety in question? TVA spill? Ground water on fire? Find me "safe" energy.
Carbon free source is mostly accurate, in comparison to coal fire.
Where to put the waste? Its just been kicked down the field for 30 years by politicians. There are solutions.
Biggest false claim: that the viability of nuclear is tied to the price of oil. There is one oil fire plant in the US (Hawaii). Electricity and oil prices are NOT tied, the resources do NOT compete.
Excuse for a weapon? Power grade uranium is 10-15% enriched, weapon grade is 90% + . And they haven't gone 15% of the way either, it gets exponentially more difficult as refining increases.
It could lead to energy independence? Refer to oil vs. electricity comment. We import nearly 0% of electricity fuels right now.
Workforce? I don't know... probably. Go hire some people, their are plenty looking.

[myth buster]

12:15 AM on 12/29/2010

Very few plants use uranium that is even 10% enriched. A typical LWR enrichment is about 5% for fresh uranium.

[algalsolution]

01:34 PM on 11/29/2010

Our planet will be running out of fossil fuel within 10-20 years. As it does there will be more wars and hardship. The fuel we use today came from ancient green algae. We need to grow more now. Certain strains of green algae can reproduce every 24 hours and can contain 50% oil. It can not be cultivated in open ponds, because of cross contamination. www.algalsolution.com in conjunction with www.solarpriceindex.co.uk have patented a solar powered bioreactor that will save the planet.

[thatboyzachary]

02:25 AM on 12/02/2010

Wrong wrong wrong.

[Kenz300]

10:24 PM on 11/25/2010

Chernobyl -- still not cleaned up.... how many died... how many cancers?

[fabco]

02:29 PM on 11/29/2010

The LFTR is not your grandfather's antique Chernobol reactor. It cannot melt down.

Anyone interested, can check out the LFTR here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html

[Michael Mann]

04:38 PM on 12/19/2010

@fabco, Technically speaking the LFTR has to "melt down" in order to work, hence "liquid" in the name Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. It is passivly safe however, shutting itself down without damage in case of any accident. Love the video! The remix is good too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

[myth buster]

12:04 PM on 12/08/2010

How many people died in the Hindenberg accident? It's just as relevant to modern air travel and dirigibles as the Chernobyl accident is to this discussion.

[Sheldon101]

04:33 PM on 11/25/2010

Ontari-ari-ari-io

The province of Ontario has announce an energy plan for the future. For political reasons, it includes the shutting down of large coal fired power plants. It also includes the development of two new nuclear reactors with design unknown because of concerns regarding the sale of AECL. They will be located at Darlington where there are already a number of CANDU reactors. There will also be refurbishment of existing CANDU reactors in the province.

Darlington is about 40 miles east of Toronto on Lake Ontario.

Public reaction is pretty muted.

[SocialNote47]

04:54 AM on 11/23/2010

I believe that nuclear power is safer.. and it is way cleaner. I believe that we should be building new Nuclear Plants..

[joeneri]

04:15 AM on 11/23/2010

How many nuclear power supporters would like to live near a reactor?

Raise your drumsticks.

[SocialNote47]

04:55 AM on 11/23/2010

I live near Three Mile Island. And i donot worry abit. They are alot safer than ever...

[Joffan]

12:25 AM on 11/24/2010

Yep, that'd be good. Unfortunately I'm not close to any power reactor at the moment. Coal, gas and hydro is what keeps my lights on.

Not sure what the drumsticks comment means, but as a one-time drummer I'll take it.

[joeneri]

04:06 AM on 11/23/2010

Nuclear power is NOT a carbon free source of energy. The mining and extraction of uranium is highly destructive, as is its transportation, refinement, cooling and waste storage. It also requires massive amounts of government subsidies to build and maintain a reactor, money that could better be used in more efficient and benign energy development.

And it only takes one Homer Simpson moment to cause a catastrophe. But if a wind turbine fails to spin, what's the worst that could happen? It turns into a bird's nest.

[Joffan]

12:32 AM on 11/24/2010

Full lifecycle carbon implications of various generation options are given in EU's ExternE study, http://www.externe.info/expolwp6.pdf chart on page 17. Hydro then nuclear are the lowest carbon footprint energy sources.

Subsidies for nuclear power are almost all in the form of research. The weather-based sources also get continual operational support to much higher levels on a per kWh basis.

Your information about nuclear power comes from cartoons. Hmm, eeen-ter-est-ing.

A wind turbine failure can and has resulted in 20-ton blades flying considerable distances - not exactly a zero-impact result.

[myth buster]

12:05 PM on 12/08/2010

In other words, the nuclear industry benefits from military applications and training, no different from the aerospace industry.

[Michael Mann]

09:53 AM on 12/06/2010

Solar power is NOT a carbon free source of energy. The mining and extraction of the rare earths used in photo voltaic cells is highly destructiv­e, as is its transporta­tion, refinement­, manufacturing and waste storage. It also requires massive amounts of government subsidies to build and maintain a wind farm, money that could better be used in more efficient and benign energy developmen­t.

[aligatorhardt]

09:44 AM on 11/20/2010

I see the nuclear industry has sent some employees here to advocate their industry. We are not fooled by these sudden new commenters. Nuclear power is too expensive, uses too much water, causes thermal changes as well as radiation changes to the water. There is no long term solution to the radioactive waste storage. the cost of storing waste for ever is too expensive. The threat of terrorist attack against nuclear facilities is a serious concern that does not involve any other type of electric generation. The constant mining and processing of nuclear fuel uses a large amount of petroleum to accomplish, with the corresponding pollution that results from these activities. The cancer rates of people near reactors are higher than the general population. The cancer rates of nuclear power workers are higher. We all have to pay for the increased health care required as a result of using nuclear power. Areas contaminated with radioactivity remain dead zones without being used for anything forever. There is no way to clean up areas that are contaminated. The 144 reactors in the US have radiation leaks at 99 of the locations. The use of nuclear power is considered a security threat in countries were we cannot be sure they are not being used to create weapons grade products. We will get electricity for a few decades from these facilities, but they will continue to be an expense for thousands of years and more.
We have many superior technologies thar create electricity without constant fuel needs, without constant mining activities, without the petroleum needs of constantly transporting fuels. We have perpetual motions of natural forces of sunlight, wind, moving water, high underground temperatures. We should take advantage of these natural forces and harness them for clean and infinitely renewable energy that does not pollute our air, water or soil, does not provide targets of mass destruction for terrorists, does not leave the land unusable. We need clean solar, wind, geothermal energy production.
 For more information:  www.renewableenergyworld.com    www.uscusa.org

[notpoliticallysafe]

01:48 PM on 11/21/2010

Repeating the same theme that those of us who support nuclear must all work for the nuclear industry & rehashing debunked more politics & less on science claims doesn' raise anything new. It has already been proven that solar panels contain carcinogens & terrorists can use Polysilicon & other chemicals found there in terrorist attacks. But time is on the side of nuclear & as mentioned by me more nations are repealing their anti-nuclear laws passed during the 1970s & 1980s.

Some of the posters here have said that they were preiviously anti-nuclear & now support nuclear. Groups such as the Sierra Club & Greenpeace by saying little if anything on the dangers of windmills & solar panels perhaps think that environmental damage, killing endangered species & pollution are OK when they are done by windmills & solar panels. Finally it must be said that in the future, nulcear shipping for cruise ships is going to happen because the shipping industry is looking to reduce fossil fuel & CO2 emissions. Whether you like it or not, nuclear power is not going away.

[joeneri]

04:11 AM on 11/23/2010

What are you talking about? It's already going away:

http://futurismic.com/2009/11/18/peak-uranium-our-nuclear-future-might-be-shorter-than-we-thought/

http://www.energybulletin.net/52767

[Joffan]

10:51 PM on 11/21/2010

I see the arguments against nuclear power are not strong enough to stand without assigning the proponents to a conspiracy.

Tell you what, pick a solar PV project and we'll analyze its costs together. See how much it costs per GW average power and what its installation rate (per GWav) was. Warning: the costs are likely to be around $30 billion and the timescale many decades.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that you understand nuclear power technology by explaining how cooling water, which does not go through the reactor, gets "radiation changes". Or perhaps you would like to get the number of reactors in the US correct. Or perhaps find out how many leaks have been found beyond the plant boundary, so that one could honestly claim "the plant is leaking". OR find the source for your erroneous claims about cancer.

Or justify any of your error-filled cut-and-paste attacks on nuclear, really.

I sometimes think it's the "greens" who oppose nuclear power who are the real climate change denial camp.

[optura]

12:30 AM on 11/19/2010

nuclear power is the answer that that has newer been sufficiently given -why? because those who need it the most have the least to say about it

[Kenz300]

06:39 PM on 11/17/2010

A California-based company is building a $120 million biofuels plant near Reno Nevada.
They expect the plant will create more than 50 full-time and 450 temporary jobs.

The plant is expected to produce 10.5 million gallons of ethanol 16 megawatts of
electricity annually by processing municipal solid waste.

This plant will create clean energy and reduce dependence on foreign oil by
processing HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE.

Clean, sustainable alternative energy --- that is what we need --- local energy, local
jobs

If every garbage dump in the country co-located an ethanol plant we could go a
long way toward producing local energy and local jobs.

[joeneri]

04:12 AM on 11/23/2010

The reprocessing of waste is the best way to transition to renewable power. Nature has managed to close the carbon cycle; why can't we?