Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political theme:
City:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of
@9H3JJK3Republican 2yrs2Y
Nuclear power is a powerful, versatile, clean energy source. The technology behind it is mature, and there are many promising new nuclear technologies designs in the pipeline that can be deployed in the coming years to bring down costs and meet a wider variety of societal needs, including small modular reactors and reactors that provide heat for industrial applications. The problems of nuclear waste are purely political, not technological, and are often greatly exaggerated by a public who does not understand nuclear science very well.
@9H3QNFX2yrs2Y
This is true. Any problems with nuclear power are often signs of not only old reactors, but mismanagement and human error as well.
@9GFNG2KProgressive 2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is a safe and compact alternative to coal and gas plants and should be implemented instead. It makes up for the weaknesses of solar and wind power that require huge energy storage solutions to function, because it functions all hours of the day and never stops producing energy.
@9GFQYPW 2yrs2Y
I completely agree. The general public has been scared away from nuclear energy and its potential because of Chernobyl and the widespread fear of anything nuclear that stemmed from the Cold War. We should be investing more in nuclear energy and destigmatizing it in the eyes of the public.
@R3volutionDovesGreen2yrs2Y
The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters highlight the catastrophic consequences when things go wrong. Every day nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of years and for which we still don't have a safe, long-term storage solution. The process of mining and refining uranium, which is used as fuel in nuclear reactors, also has significant environmental impacts.
@9GFNG2KProgressive 2yrs2Y
Regarding the urgency of climate change, the best option we have now without development into new technology in nuclear. Renewable sources like wind and solar are plentiful, but require energy storage technology that we can't deploy on a large enough scale in time. Hydro-electric dams are a solution, but the negative impacts of dams on the environment limits us from deploying on a large enough scale once again. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere, can produce energy at all hours of the day, and are safer than what they were 12 years ago.
@9TYJFHK9mos9MO
Chornobyl and Fukishima were freak accidents caused by engineering and management failures. Contemporary reactor design has already solved those engineering problems thoroughly.
Coal, oil, and other fossil fuels cause far more deaths-per-year and deaths-per-megawatt than nuclear does.
The burning of coal releases far more non-contained radioactive than nuclear reactors do. As for the waste from nuclear reactors, we only "don't have a solution" because Nevada won't let us dig. Finland already has a storage facility for nuclear-waste.
@9QX89526mos6MO
we still don't have a safe, long-term storage solution.
Yes we do. It's called a hole. I can think of some that would be excellently suited for the task - like perhaps the mines we dug the uranium out from.
@9GFQWT8Constitution2yrs2Y
I definitely agree with Nuclear Energy because Solar and Green energy doesn't produce enough energy to be sustainable in the U.S. which requires a lot of energy. Nuclear energy is safer than most realize, the media has portrayed Nuclear energy as dangerous and cite disasters for proof but all those disasters are caused by human negligence.
@9GG6Q9T2yrs2Y
Top Agreement
Nuclear energy is clean, powerful, and reliable. It needs to be de-stigmatized in order for the general public to agree on this.
@9GKGKQ2 2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is statistically safer than coal, solar, and wind power. Every nuclear disaster to date has been a result of bad public communication or simply negligence as a result of bad governmental oversight, meaning they were caused by people, not the tech itself. Also, nuclear power is significantly more energy-dense, allowing more land to be used for non-energy purposes.
@9FT7MNK 2yrs2Y
Not only is nuclear energy the most powerful source of energy that we have it is a source that has almost zero carbon footprint. Most people probably think that's untrue because a anyone with the internet can tell you after a quick google search that nuclear plants are always producing large clouds of smog right? No, the "smog" is nothing more than water vapor, the stuff that clouds are made of. Nuclear plants are also the most reliable sources of energy with them working at 100% more than 92% of the time according the the department of energy more than double gas and coal and tipple wind and solar.
@9FVBZ592yrs2Y
I adore this comment. Nuclear energy is literally proven to be the best and most reliable source of energy... I don't know what this issue is all about.
Yes, and it is important to note that less people have lost their lives due to nuclear meltdowns than infrastructure failure in "green" sources.
@B5T2B7N 3wks3W
People's idea that nuclear energy is unsafe is based on a 1950s image of technology. Modern nuclear technology is super safe, efficient, and a necessity to keep our nation developing.
@9G8T8WF2yrs2Y
There has been a significant amount of research in nuclear energy, especially thorium reactors. They're significantly safer due to the reaction not needing to be under heavy pressure, thorium is easier to process and three times more abundant than uranium, and it is impossible for it to undergo a meltdown since the thorium reaction is not self-sustained.
@9G94XQ52yrs2Y
Traditional uranium reactors make more sense compared to thorium reactors. Looking at current statistics for nuclear energy per ton of carbon compared to coal it makes sense to use nuclear energy. Coal against nuclear energy per unit make about 273 times more tones of emissions and around 1230 time more deaths. Deaths in nuclear energy really don't happen apart from 3 main meltdowns which have all be the cause of operator error or being hit by a tsunami. None of these problems really have to do with nuclear power in of itself. When looking at public perception of climate change against nuclear energy you will notice a negative association which makes absolutely no sense other than people being stupid. We need better education of nuclear energy in schools.
@9FVXY3T 2yrs2Y
Nuclear is the most reliable energy source available. For example, nuclear power plants produce maximum power 92% of the time. For comparison, solar is only at max 24.9% of the time while wind is at around 35.4% of the time. Similarly, a typical nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. You would need at least two coal power plants or 3-4 renewable plants (each 1 GW size) to generate the same electricity. Furthermore, if we can crack the fusion technical problem, we can eliminate the risk of meltdowns and make nuclear waste much more manageable. It's not even close; nuclear energy is the most reliable and clean source.
@9FVYLK82yrs2Y
I agree with the use of Nuclear Energy. We just need to find a proper, safe, and clean method of disposing of radioactive waste.
@B5KWQZL1mo1MO
It has been proven that nuclear is cleaner and so much safer, the amount of energy it produces outweighs the liabilities of it.
Sure, I think at some point this hold up, but when the alternatives of green energy are sooo much safer and provide way more jobs its a no brainer.
@B5NFFC41mo1MO
Very much so, Nuclear is when established, a Cheap and reliable source of energy that is getting better every year.
Objectively true, the only hurdle is localized power and the dangers of using it too much. We do have to worry about future generations who may not understand the dangers of nuclear waste. How we dispose of it and how we manage nuclear power on a world wide scale must be taken into account for a thousand years from now. It solves so many problems however so it should be our primary goal
@B5MJ3YC1mo1MO
I agree with the comment—nuclear energy has consistently proven to be one of the cleanest and most efficient sources of power available. Modern nuclear technology has made great strides in safety, with stringent regulations and advanced reactor designs significantly reducing risks. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy produces no carbon emissions during operation, which makes it a powerful tool in combating climate change. While concerns about waste and past accidents are valid, the overall benefits in terms of energy output, reliability, and environmental impact make nuclear a critical part of a balanced, forward-looking energy strategy.
@9FYMSW7Republican 2yrs2Y
nuclear energy causes less deaths per unit of energy produced than any other type of energy production. Modern regulations and science that ensure nuclear safety are over looked by illogical emotional fears caused by disasters decades ago with long outdated equipment and amplified by bad human error.
@9FYPHH62yrs2Y
I completely agree; people often have an aversion to nuclear energy because of this ingrained fear of radiation and its sources. Now that scientists are aware of nuclear energy’s extreme dangers, power plants are almost 100% safe, even in the event of a natural disaster, and certainly safer than they are made out to be.
@B5LHXJ9Republican 1mo1MO
That as of now it produces way less emissions/ waste as of using fossil fuels and carbon. knowing that the process produces physical waste, it will be better to properly dispose of than a carbon emission.
This argument falls flat, spent nuclear energy does not have a good way of disposal yet, and is a big reason why we don't have more nuclear energy
@B5NFZ361mo1MO
Nuclear Energy is highly radioactive and nuclear plants are dangerous work environments. For instance, in 1999, a Japanese nuclear plant technician suffered from severe radioactive burns. He then succumbed to his injuries 83 days later.
@B5NDZRH1mo1MO
yes, nuclear energy produces virtually no carbo emissions and the nuclear waste that is produced can be re purposed for other uses
@B5MYVN51mo1MO
Even if it is more difficult to dispose of nuclear waste, the vast efficiency gains over all other forms of energy production make it more than worth the effort.
@9FSBMSV 2yrs2Y
It produces zero carbon emissions and doesn't produce other noxious greenhouse gases through its operation.
@9FXJ9MX 2yrs2Y
It produces no carbon emissions, pure water vapor and nuclear waste, which we have methods of preparing, unlike carbon emissions which is a current crisis.
@B5SLBH23wks3W
Nuclear energy is a proven technology in its current state. It is the only effective baseload power solution we have that does not cause emissions. Nuclear reactors provide high-paying jobs and give us energy security, instead of relying on importing foreign oil from countries with dubious human rights records.
@9GS22QZ2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is only bad if we don't run it correctly. Many other countries have nuclear energy as their main source of energy and they haven't had any problems.
@9GV2NVV2yrs2Y
The waste created in all of its existence is less than what we burn in co2 in a day. Additionally advancements like nuclear fusion have been achieved that will create brighter opportunities in the future.
@9GZCHKG2yrs2Y
The grams per Kilowatt hour of Nuclear energy is at 11 when compared to coal at 820, or even solar at 48, meaning that it produces less than 30% of carbon than solar and less than 10% of coal for the same amount of energy. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change.aspx
@9H26XB62yrs2Y
Nuclear energy has advantages over renewables in terms of reliability, GHG emissions, land use and waste
@9GSTZMZ2yrs2Y
It would take roughly 1.26 million wind turbines to power the U.S, While 14,000 nuclear plants could power the entire world.
@9GRL52J2yrs2Y
Nuclear fission is nearly 8,000 times more efficient at producing energy than traditional fossil fuels, because nuclear energy is more efficient, it requires less fuel to power the plant and therefore creates less waste as well. But it isn't the most efficient, we should instead invest in all forms of energy and see which one works the cleanest, most efficient, and is cheaper. Then we should only invest in that option.
@9GTYW4WRepublican2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy produces no airborne pollution, is statistically safer than all other power generation methods, and is capable of producing enough energy to sustain the entire grid. It is the only reasonable long term solution available to eliminate fossil fuel dependency and combat climate change.
@9GVCP7G2yrs2Y
Chernobel was blown way out of proportion and we're ignoring a viable energy source that can be safer through experimentation.
@9GW99DF2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is clean, powerful, and reliable. It needs to be de-stigmatized in order for the general public to agree on this
@9GR68MX2yrs2Y
Nuclear power is far safer than many assume. Chernobyl is what many point to when opposing nuclear power. Nowadays, it is so much safer than the past plants, plus, Chernobyl had internal problems. Nuclear waste is the other problem, however, there are some use cases for nuclear waste.
@9GQWFCF2yrs2Y
There have been two accidents that have resulted in casualties, Chernobyl, which was caused by human failure of judgement, and Fukushima, which was caused by a massive tsunami and only had one death. Nuclear energy is very reliable and can be used to reinforce existing renewable power to prevent rolling blackouts.
@9GRRK6T2yrs2Y
Nuclear produces less waste, and with less risk for human or environmental health than any option we currently have.
@9GQM62FProgressive2yrs2Y
On average nuclear powerplants in the USA produce 1 gigawatt of power per plant. In contrast, solar plants produce only 1.5 kilowatts on average.
@9H3WNXZ2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is very safe, especially with modern safety codes. No energy source available is more energy dense and easily usable than nuclear power.
@9H3DSHZ2yrs2Y
thorium is a common material used in nuclear energy that doesn't put out very much waste, easy to mine, can't be used in nuclear weapons, and is safer because it needs something else to make it radioactive which could be taken away in an instant to prevent a meltdown.
@9GPP4SDIndependent2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels and produces way more energy that we could make use of until we find even better methods of generating clean energy.
@9GV8JFQ2yrs2Y
it provides a lot of power and if no one **** s up we will be fine so moral of the story dont make a chernobel story
@9FQHVWSLibertarian2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy provides over 100x it's energy rate of return. Wind farms are made from materials derived from oil and plastics. They are intermittent and the only alternative for baseload energy is natural gas. If these are unacceptable, nuclear energy is the way to go. Serious considerations need to be made for the oversight and red tape that prohibits the regulation of pressurized water reactors.
@9FPMFHW2yrs2Y
Nuclear Energy is extremely safe, secure, and reliable. nuclear is the most realistic out of any green energies.
@9GXDY282yrs2Y
To power a city you need a lot of energy, and that energy flow needs to be constant. That automatically rules out half of the alternatives to nuclear energy, which is the only clean solution that could provide enough energy
@9FLHMVSIndependent2yrs2Y
I only support if it's in lower levels, we don't need another Chernobyl, and we absolutely don't need anything close to a nuclear war
@9FR6NZH2yrs2Y
nuclear has the best in energy production. they may make lots of polution but till noe where cloce to muclear fution and that will change every thing.
@9H2HP962yrs2Y
Further research into replacing Nuclear Fission with Nuclear fusion may provide one of the cleanest and highest producing energy sources ever developed by mankind. We should focus more money on the scientists and people researching Fusion now.
@9GZ7HBM2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is statistically the cleanest, safest, and most efficient means of energy production.
@9H49TP52yrs2Y
Nuclear Energy has historically been fear-mongered due to events like Chernobyl or Fukushima, rare and preventable events. Despite it’s bad rap Nuclear Power does not have any of the negative effects that clean energy sources do, like wind turbines killing birds in large numbers or damage to rivers from hydroelectric dams.
@9H2NMRK2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is well regulated and there has only been a few incidents where something has gone wrong and there was a melt down.
@9GZXGMH2yrs2Y
Since the beginning we've seen that nuclear is efficient, fast, and has easy ways to be disposed of. Fukushima and Chernobyl only happened because of lackluster safety checks, which is something we cannot afford to do. And to see a nuclear successful country, I would suggest France.
@9GW4QYG2yrs2Y
The only accidents that have happened were due to a lack of redundancy and proper precaution. For the continuation of our energy use and as it increases we must invest as much as possible in a safe form of nuclear power.
@9GRL99Y2yrs2Y
nuclear plants are large and produce only a small amount of waste and can last for decades whereas solar panels and wind turbines needs to be replaced after only a decade or two of use.
@9GYT8XVLibertarian2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy although can be dangerous without proper precautions produces renewable energy at a consistent rate. Additionally, nuclear fusion has just been used last December to create a net gain of energy without the long lasting radiation that fission produces
@9FNPT532yrs2Y
The average amount of power that Nuclear energy can create is about 1 gigawatt of power, while Hydroelectric and other renewable resources can provide around 500,000 megawatts. Additionally, nuclear byproducts aren't as useless as they would seem, while they are highly radioactive, the byproducts still have around 90% of their power remaining, meaning that they can still produce more after they've been used, they also can be recycled and turned into other things when the fuel has ran out.
@9GYGMN62yrs2Y
Nuclear energy provides energy and doesn't pollute our o-zone layer with green house gases as the steam emitted from the cooling towers of plants is simply water vapor. On top of that nuclear energy doesn't require to change the ecosystem around the plant. Hydroelectric plants require to disrupt the flow of water that fish and other animals use to drink.
@9GWF6JV2yrs2Y
There's currently approx a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of a catastrophic meldown per year in our current nuclear technology. According to: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull16-1/161_202007277.pdf
@yesrunIndependent2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is clean in its production, and waste disposal is safe. Cleaner disposal/recycling techniques can continue to be researched and invested in. This type of energy would replace fossil fuel dependence on a much shorter timeline than other clean alternatives.
@9GPX92W2yrs2Y
It is cleaner than many people are aware of, and is the future of energy for at least the next century
@9GZ2N232yrs2Y
I agree with this claim. Nuclear energy is an important aspect in the fight against climate change, however it has been given a bad reputation in the past by mismanaged plants.
@9H4SMHD2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is extremely green in comparison to coal plants, it is also much more effective than wind/solar
@9GZX6BN2yrs2Y
We can't get our power grid to 100% clean energy on wind because it is intermittent and can't be installed everywhere. Hydroelectric is reliable, but results in flooded communities when dams are built, and can only be used where the natural geography is supportive of it. Thorium IS NUCLEAR power, just a different kind than Uranium based nuclear power. Geothermal only works in areas where there is a natural source of heat, and over time, that heat diminishes requiring construction elsewhere for the heat to "recharge". Nuclear is cheap, clean, safe, and reliable in a way that none of these other options are able to do.
@9GTXXBS2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy can support the entire electricity grid as soon as it can be built, eliminating coal plants completely until we can store energy from other renewables.
@9GJZRDY2yrs2Y
The total amount of nuclear waste ever produced in the world could fit inside the ash pile produced by a single coal power plant. The amount of radiation next to a coal power plant is actually higher than near a nuclear power plant because coal has trace amounts of uranium and thorium in it. Whilst nuclear power is more expensive than wind and solar currently, the reverse was true 10 years ago; nuclear power has the potential to be cheaper than wind or solar if we again invest in technological progress in this area.
@9FMHMT22yrs2Y
Nuclear fusion is a clean no waste energy source that can lead to future opportunities for new and cleaner technology. It also offers a higher output of energy once it reaches the max energy point, and is safer than nuclear fission.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
However, it has only succeeded to make a positive energy output once. We should invest drastically in it, but we need more material to use it, and research to better increase it's power.
@L1bertarianSteve2yrs2Y
The ITER project in France is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject, which aims to make the long-awaited transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power plants. As for the need for more material, one of the most promising aspects of nuclear fusion is that the fuel used (hydrogen isotopes) are abundant and widely available.
However, you raised an interesting point about the need for more research to increase its power. How do you propose we balance the urgency of our growing energy demands with the time and resources needed for this research?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
I actually did a research project on ITER a while back, I'm excited to see it start operating late this decade. We should try and put a portion of energy funding into it's research as we increase renewable and nuclear energy spending. Not sure what amount should balance it, but I think we need to do our best to invest as much as possible in all non-fossil fuel energies.
@9G8V7CH2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is one of the most profitable energy sources and it will help the U.S progress, militarily ans economically.
@9G9JQN32yrs2Y
Nuclear energy produces no carbon emissions upon successful energy transfer and is plenty more efficient than fossil fuels.
@9G7X773Libertarian2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is a rather safe and reliable energy source, the perfect balance between the environment and energy, but only when under the control of the competent and trustworthy.
@B5RHL5M4wks4W
one kilogram of uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal and once used up can be recycled additionally the nuclear storage facilities are much more sophisticated now and don’t cause the surrounding areas to be affected by radiation.
@9GT6R922yrs2Y
The biggest issue with nuclear energy has been the storage of lifelong nuclear waste from spent rods. Using old technology, the nuclear radiation still emanated from material no longer able to provide energy. Now technology has advanced to the point where we can utilize all of the radiation, even bringing back old ‘spent’ rods and draining those of radiation. Bill Gates talks a lot about this, he has invested heavily in this infrastructure.
@9FPV6MC2yrs2Y
"The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year."
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:~:text=The%20generation%20of%20electricity%20from,the%20used%20fuel%20is%20recycled.
@9HVYZVJ 1yr1Y
The word nuclear has terrified people for decades in the context of weapons. However, nuclear energy itself is very clean and causes less radiation then stepping out in the sunlight or riding an airplane. As well, it is super efficient. More can be made for less money, which is why nations like France use 80% of their power from nuclear sources.
@9GVLDWT2yrs2Y
With the technology we have today nuclear energy is by far the most effective way to power the world while trying to keep emissions down. Furthermore, the only reason the world has moved away from it is because of the few accidents that where caused by poor funding, accidents that would not happen today.
@9FMC6MZ2yrs2Y
It's less polluting than most fossil fuels, and has an overblown reputation of being unsafe. The biggest disasters like Chernobyl were caused by faulty design and operator oversight.
@9GW664G2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is known for producing high amounts of energy through nuclear fission with minimum waste. This makes it an optimal energy source as it thorium could be used as a more reliable fuel source and produces minimal to no amounts of nuclear waste. When compared to the current energy method employed by the United States, coal, nuclear energy is far more reliable and generates less pollution.
@9FTNWSV2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is a reliable source of energy and it gives it constantly no matter what’s the weather.
@9GSPFY82yrs2Y
Only 2 nuclear accidents have been major: Fukushima and Chernobyl. However, Switzerland has been running on nuclear energy since the mid-1900s and has had no problems whatsoever.
@9FQ9BDM2yrs2Y
The US has many nuclear power plants already, and a lot of other countries also have nuclear power plants Japan, being a great example of how nuclear power can be a good thing is examining just how much of Japan relies on nuclear power, and their quick and speedy response to nuclear power related disasters.
@9FPBVG42yrs2Y
Either way we are cutting down on our fossil fuel usage while still having even more power than before allowing us to have more time to come up with a completely sustainable energy source
@9FTQST22yrs2Y
A singular pellet of uranium is equal to that of 1 ton of coal. Coal and other cleaner sources of generating energy could not compare to how much more energy nuclear power would create.
@9FS8GNF2yrs2Y
While nuclear has had accidents, nearly every source of energy has its own accidents or problems. While yes, nuclear can have worse emvironmental impacts, the cases were all in extreme situations that had never happened before. Some were caused by the lack of proper training, or concentration (see SL-1 incident) of the night crew, some were caused by politics, and some were caused by something that had never happened before.
- 90% of nuclear waste can be recycled, but it's not due to lack of investment.
- 68% of France's energy needs are met by nuclear. No other renewable has been able to accomplish that
@9FS7CL22yrs2Y
Nuclear meltdowns are far less common than they are perceived to be as well as recent nuclear recycling technology greatly reducing nuclear waste.
With the right precautions Nuclear energy can really advance our energy. They could be all over the country so we can remove those ugly inefficient towers that carry our power across the continent.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
