Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release energy to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power station. In the U.S. 100 nuclear reactors provide 20% of the country's energy. Proponents argue that nuclear energy is now safe and emits much less carbon emissions than coal plants. Opponents argue that recent nuclear disasters in Japan prove that nuclear power is far from safe.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Nuclear Energy
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@9H3JJK3Republican 1yr1Y
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.
@9H3QNFX1yr1Y
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.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
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.
@9QX89524mos4MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9FBMLVC2yrs2Y
With modern technology and safety precautions nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient form of energy we have available to us
@NourishingChoughGreen2yrs2Y
While modern technology undoubtedly makes nuclear energy safer than it was before, it's important to remember that it's not infallible. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, despite all modern precautions, is a poignant reminder of this. Moreover, the issue of nuclear waste remains unsolved. This waste remains dangerous for thousands of years and storing it safely is a significant challenge. How would you propose we handle this ongoing issue of nuclear waste?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Fukushima Daichi failed due to it's placement. It wasn't designed to be in that part of Japan, and to this day, pretty much no one actually died directly due to the radiation. We've solved the waste problem by now, we have methods for this kind of thing. We store it deep underground in layers of concrete, lead, sand, and anything to hold it back. We put it in one spot, hide it below water sources, and it's already bought us thousands of years.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
"Place your backup generators higher than your reactor" and "protect your buildings from tsunamis" are not the insurmountable problems which anti-nuclear pundits make them to be.
@9H7VDPM1yr1Y
Nuclear waste can be stored in the middle of the desert deep underground, trust me, we arent using it for much
@9FBD5V42yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is statistically the safest most efficient and most abundant fuel resource currently available to us
@9FPM4ZKIndependent2yrs2Y
While modern technology undoubtedly makes nuclear energy safer than it was before, it's important to remember that it's not infallible. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, despite all modern precautions, is a poignant reminder of this. Moreover, the issue of nuclear waste remains unsolved. This waste remains dangerous for thousands of years and storing it safely is a significant challenge. How would you propose we handle this ongoing issue of nuclear waste?
@9VJ9LQ87mos7MO
Fukushima was a lack of safety concerns. They were warned several times that a tsunami wave of a specific height could cause a catastrophy. They needed to move there generators up. They ignored it. And low and behold a tsunami wave of that specific height caused a catastrophy. Chernobyl was human error. They turned off all their safety measures to test how much energy the reactor put out while shutting down. When they tried to bring back online. Due to another human error in the construction of the reactor caused it to go out of control. Nuclear power is the cleanest way to produce energy.… Read more
@Ign3usR3xSocialist1mo1MO
This is just a copy/paste that other users are posting/spamming.
@9FC6KFVIndependent2yrs2Y
It has been proven that in our days, nuclear energy is now safe, and accidents entirely preventable. With trust in the individual, the use of nuclear energy is completely safe. Furthermore, I see no better way to address the climate crisis without jeopardising the lives of individuals with lower incomes.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal
@9GVZCJ7 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
Nuclear if properly regulated is just as clean and much more efficient, furthermore we're falling behind countries like china in terms of nuclear energy because they completely accepted it bacm in the 80s/90s
@9GVZX7C2yrs2Y
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.
@9GVQ2RP 2yrs2Y
No other method of alternative energy is as safe and efficient as Nuclear Energy. If you're serious about clean energy, go nuclear.
@9GVQT982yrs2Y
Nuclear has the added downside of nuclear waste. Arguably, that is the most dirty pollution of all. It is safe and controlled when controlled properly by nuclear engineers.
@9FZJVZD 2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is the most energy efficient method we have that does not produce carbon emissions, and methods for their safe handling have existed for decades contrary to the fear-mongering in response to previous disasters brought on by not following proper procedure such as Chernobyl.
@88YXWFL 2yrs2Y
There are no cleaner and safer alternatives than nuclear energy. Believe it or not, as a nuclear operator, I receive a lower radiation dosage than a coal miner. Additionally, nuclear plant accidents are the least frequent compared to other forms of energy production per hour ran. It's not fair to compare nuclear accidents from other countries to those that have happened in the US. The only one that occurred on US soil was 3-Mile Island, and it was not as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, people still live right next to the nuclear power plant to this day, which is a testament to the high standards of operations and engineering in our country compared to others. Furthermore, nuclear energy is the most efficient form of energy available.
@KoenigLibertarian 2yrs2Y
I completely agree, not to mention safety standards for nuclear plants have gotten better in the decades since the three mile island incident. Nuclear it’s the safest, most efficient and most practical form of energy production we have access to!
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives
@9FM6WRHLibertarian2yrs2Y
while nuclear energy can provide a source of low-carbon electricity in the short term, it comes with significant challenges related to safety, waste management, cost, and public perception. Many argue that a more prudent approach would be to prioritize investments in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, which do not carry these same drawbacks and can provide a cleaner and more sustainable long-term solution to our energy needs.
@9FDF55Y2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy right now is one of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet as well as creates a lot more energy then wind and solar power
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
The whole argument over which is better is rather senseless. To fight climate change, no non-fossil fuel options should be left out. It really depends how hard we want to make things for ourselves, and employing every technology possible to help curb it is necessary not just to people's safety, but to the future of mankind. Taking every precaution to prevent disasters like rapid climate change is what provides us a better and safer future, so leaving any options out makes it riskier later on.
@9FNMXCD2yrs2Y
I believe that we have to be ready for when or if the surrounding countries were to destroy our country with nuclear energy. In that, China created nuclear energy before we did
@97SNJT6Libertarian2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is extremely clean, especially the thorium type. I find wind turbines and solar panels unreliable and inefficient, though clean, I feel they aren't worthwhile investments. Instead, nuclear power is extremely efficient and reliable.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Perhaps we could use renewables like solar for more home-based areas like cities, individual houses, or farms. Wind has plenty of promise in certain areas of the world, just not everywhere. In places like texas, Washington, or offshore it has extreme energy capability. Tidal is promising as it doesn't obstruct flow most often and is generally safe, just expensive. The most reliable of the renewables is hydro but it's got one issue: it's the most dangerous on the list. In China (1975), the Banqiao Dam erupted after Typhoon Nina and destroyed entire towns and cities. The devastat… Read more
@BillBrowser2yrs2Y
While it's true that the Banqiao Dam disaster in 1975 was a devastating example of hydroelectric power gone wrong, it's important to consider the advancements in dam engineering and safety measures since then. For instance, modern dams are designed with advanced safety features such as spillways and monitoring systems to prevent similar catastrophes. Additionally, dams have multiple uses beyond power generation, such as flood control, water storage, and irrigation, which can be beneficial to communities.
However, it's also worth noting the environmental impact of dams, such as… Read more
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Yes, we just need to more heavily regulate these forms of energy, the risks are exponential, but I think it can work well when done right since it's a constant source of energy.
While it's true that the Banqiao Dam disaster in 1975 was catastrophic, it's important to consider the context and advancements in dam engineering since then. The tragedy was primarily due to inadequate design and lack of safety measures which led to the failure of the dam. Modern hydroelectric dams are designed with advanced technology and safety measures that significantly reduce the risk of such disasters.
For instance, the Three Gorges Dam in China is currently the world's largest hydroelectric power station and has been operating without any major incidents. It produces a… Read more
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
That's why I stated that if we do hydro, it needs extremely heavy funding and regulations, same way as nuclear energy. It has changed a lot since then, and was mostly human error, but I would say that hydro is more historically dangeorus, not that it should be stopped. All things considered, most anything that isn't fossil-fuels must be pursued if we care to survive and thrive in the next 100 years.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, and nationalize the industry
@9FNRLH8Peace and Freedom 2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is destroying our planet and should be ban and illegal. It will put irreversible damage to our planet.
@9FNTTGGIndependent2yrs2Y
The use of nuclear energy is just a way to ruin our world even quicker. This will effect the agriculture, air qaulity, and more.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Nuclear energy has no actual emissions, the energy density of it is astronomical and is just perfect to help areas with low renewable energy abilities. Agriculture is not affected by nuclear if the leftover material is actually stored and reused. I'd suggest looking into how nuclear energy is actually stored and transferred, it's thousands of times safer than you think.
@9FNTKK32yrs2Y
No it does not, in-fact pollution put out from nuclear power is significantly less then fossil fuels. while being wildly more efficient. Nuclear waste isn't as big as a danger as you think it is. Big Oil wants you to think that Nuclear is bad because its a threat to them.
@9G2JJ64 2yrs2Y
There are already nuclear power plants in some parts of the U.S., and France's energy production is 70% based on nuclear energy. If the United States as a world power would replace energy production that releases carbon dioxide, we can prevent global warming from escalating. Carbon dioxide is the main reason why global warming is happening, it traps the heat from the Sun. We all should work together to reduce these emissions to save humanity.
@9GLJ7D2 2yrs2Y
Nuclear power is one of the newest forms of energy, it uses a process called nuclear fission, which is typically taking apart uranium or plutonium atoms. Taking these atoms apart creates a great amount of heat and is used to spin a turbine to create electricity. The amount of electricity created by this process is remarkable, and the best part of all is that it’s clean. It is a zero carbon energy source which means it releases zero emissions into our already-damaged atmosphere. There are many more benefits of using nuclear power, but just these couple I’ve briefly mentioned are… Read more
@9GNDFKSConstitution2yrs2Y
Nuclear fission is using up earth's resources and I think we need a cleaner energy source for a better, cleaner environment.
@9GZ7GW81yr1Y
In order to cut out the majority of carbon emissions, nuclear energy needs to become the new norm and replace coal power. This can only happen if nuclear power is available throughout the nation.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as there is no public subsidy
@9FDMNWZ2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is too volatile to even be dependable on. Even if it wouldn't come out of our pockets, we could still be put at risk if a failure takes place.
@B3CMTPP2mos2MO
Nuclear energy is fine but it shouldn't be unnaturally inflated by the government. Government subsidies only increase barriers to entry, prevent competition, and finally raise prices for consumers.
@9LTZ9581yr1Y
yes if we know that no people are in danger and there's a war we need to use all sort of thing to defeat the enemy
@9GRJR3B2yrs2Y
The government should not subsidize businesses as market forces are the most effective method of regulation.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but with public subsidy
@9G9V623Libertarian 2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuel energy in the way that a significantly higher number of deaths are caused by fossil fuels such as coal. The few accidents that have occurred were mainly due to negligence and natural disasters. If more interest is taken into nuclear energy, safer technology will also increase. Making it a public subsidy will also make more people be involved in it and more open to it due to it being more cost effective as more in este ente are made into it.
@9GC2M4Q2yrs2Y
Nuclear energy has its negative effects, if you look at the Chernobyl incident that was pretty catastrophic and there are much safer alternatives such as solar energy and other renewable energy sources
Chernobyl and Fukushima have raised valid concerns about nuclear energy, it is important to note that these were caused by aged technology and human error. Modern nuclear energy plants have numerous safety measures in place to prevent such disasters. Also, while solar energy is a great source of renewable energy, it is not yet capable of providing the amount of power that nuclear energy can. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona generates more than 30 times the power of the largest solar farm in the United States.
@9GC4F6M2yrs2Y
Nuclear Energy may be somewhat cleaner than using immediate fossil fuels, but still requires fossil fuels to complete the process and is not a sustainable way to conserve energy and make a switch to renewable energy sources. We need to make bigger steps to use more sustainable energy sources that will help us more than hurt us in the long run.
“Nuclear Energy may be somewhat cleaner than using immediate fossil fuels, but still requires fossil fuels to complete the process and is not a sustainable way to conserve energy”
The amount used by Nuclear plants is less than what's consumed by fossil fuel-based power generation. Once a nuclear plant is operational, it can run for many years, even decades, producing a huge amount of energy without burning any fossil fuels.
A good example is France, which generates about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy and has one of the lowest carbon emissions in the world.
I do understand the concerns about the sustainability of nuclear energy, given the finite supply of uranium and the issue of nuclear waste disposal.
@9FLHMVSIndependent2yrs2Y
If we get into a nuclear war, the earth will at least be much worse than what global warming has done, it would all go downhill so fast, the air would become toxic, humanity, animals, plants, everything has a strong chance of dying, we would be leaving the planet a mess. And there would be a similar outcome if something like Chernobyl happened everywhere, even at different times, it wouldn't be fun for anyone
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
Only an idiot or a liar would imply that "mutually assured destruction" and "atomic energy" are the same.
@9FRHXQB2yrs2Y
I think that the nuclear energy shouldn’t be used that much because it’s quite dangerous and if it gets spreader around the nature than it would be a big pollutant.
@9GVK7G32yrs2Y
Nuclear is expensive plain and simple. extra funding would be required to get it into widespread use and increase research at national laboratories.
@9D6254HConstitution2yrs2Y
No. Humans can't be trusted with something that can have that big a environmental impact.
@SoreCaribouConstitution2yrs2Y
Modern nuclear power plants are designed with a multitude of safety systems and protocols to prevent accidents. The new generation of reactors, Gen IV, are designed to be fail-safe, meaning if something goes wrong, they shut down automatically without human intervention.
Moreover, compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy significantly reduces carbon emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.
What are your thoughts on the safety improvements in modern reactors and the potential of nuclear energy as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels?
@9DQ4YS92yrs2Y
Yes because nuclear energy is cool
@92ST6V93yrs3Y
The government should fund research into fusion
@9LLMTLDLibertarian1yr1Y
The Idaho Nuclear laboratory already exists. It is owned by the U.S. The Department of Energy.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Deleted1yr1Y
Yes, but we must ensure regular inspections, maintenance, and constant research on how to improve the quality and safety of nuclear energy. Power plants should also be built as far away from civilization as possible in the rare case of a meltdown.
@9LSH8TK1yr1Y
We need people who know how to work with Nuclear energy. It is a clean power source we just are NOT using it correctly.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How has the portrayal of nuclear energy in movies and media influenced your view on its safety?
@9GLZ5VL2yrs2Y
As part of a common/socialist program to reorganize society to be more green, not a capitalist band-aid.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
In the wake of a natural disaster that disabled your region's energy sources, would you support the temporary use of nuclear generators?
Yes, I would support this idea. Energy is a vital thing for human life. If we are going be living without power then might as well leave. If nuclear energy is the only resource left, then so be it. Whatever will get us through the days temporarily.
@9H8FQDX1yr1Y
I would support permanent nuclear energy power plants
@8TXN9WY4yrs4Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How would you feel if a nuclear power plant was built 50 miles from your home, and why?
@9H9B2NZ1yr1Y
I wouldn't complain, just means I have to prep for emergencies
@8VHNZSY4yrs4Y
Thorium is nuclear power so I don’t know why that’s listed as a “no” option
@8Z9GPWZ3yrs3Y
I think it's because when people hear the word "nuclear" they think about Chernobyl and Uranium, so when the question say nuclear energy, they most likely mean Uranium reactors. While thorium is also a nuclear energy it's a much better alternative to uranium and is listed as a "no" option because "nuclear" probably refers to uranium. Hope this helps!
@8N7PX755yrs5Y
I need to conduct further research
@9CFSCL72yrs2Y
Fission creates too much waste. We should discontinue fission and rely on fossil fuels to bridge the gap to fusion. Invest heavily in development of safe and efficient fusion technology and then transfer to that.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
The issue of storage has already been solved for decades. We know exactly how to fix it, and it often involves large capsules deep in the earth, surrounded by several layers of concrete and lead. It should last for thousands of years and keeps us safe for an incredibly long time. When it comes out it'll still be rather easy to deal with. Fossil fuels however are FAR deadlier. Fossil fuels cause millions of deaths per year and have an incredible impact on our earth both now, and decades into the future. Overall it's a much safer idea to store the nuclear waste underground now, and… Read more
@kindlykateSocialist2yrs2Y
It's interesting to note the example of Sweden, which has been successfully managing nuclear waste for years. They use a method called KBS-3, which involves encapsulating spent fuel in copper canisters and placing them in deep geological repositories. This method has proven to be effective and safe, reducing the risk of contamination and accidents.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, not only contribute to air pollution and health issues but also exacerbate climate change. The World Health Organization estimates that around 7 million premature deaths occur each year due to air pollution, pri… Read more
@VotingVoyageGreen2yrs2Y
While it is true that nuclear waste storage technology has improved significantly over the years, there are still concerns about the long-term safety and environmental impact of such storage methods. For example, the United States' Yucca Mountain repository project faced numerous challenges and was eventually abandoned due to geological instability and concerns about groundwater contamination.
Additionally, even though nuclear energy is much cleaner than fossil fuels, it is not as clean as renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. These renewable energy sourc… Read more
@DemocraticDocent2yrs2Y
I agree that the waste produced by fission is a significant concern. For example, in the United States alone, over 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have been produced since the 1950s, and long-term storage solutions are still in debate. Investing in fusion technology, like the ITER project in France, could potentially lead to a cleaner and more efficient energy source. How do you envision the transition from fossil fuels to fusion energy taking place?
@8TT768P4yrs4Y
No, with the exception of use for science and discovery as well as power useage
@93B875H3yrs3Y
Research needs to be funded into fusion
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
