Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
I have been writing a report for a project at university, i hope you don't mind but i would like to include some of your comments, as a part of the views of stakeholders on this matter,
However, personally I think nuclear power is neither good or bad, considering all the advantages compared with the disadvantages, i have come to the conclusion that nuclear power, is and always will be a controversial issue, i don't think there is any other way of explaining it!
Steve, in some what, i agree there is a lot of people (not 'wackos') that are against nuclear power and that are kind of scaring the nation, into a state of fear! But they only care about our , and the disasters that are possible from a nuclear power plant, for example Chernobyl, the country life around the place was destroyed and personally i would be devastated it that were to happen to anywhere in Britain !
we have to stop using nuclear power because it will kill all kind of life in the world.
not goog has u think
i think that if we only have 10 nuclear power plants by 2010 (oh and by then the coal will deffinatly run out) u won't see UK anymore at night! because of teh demand of electricty is higher than what they can produce. so we'll be in a blackout most of the time. GOOD LUCK UK!!
WE NEED MORE NUCLEAR AT LEAST UNTIL WE GET THE RENEWABLES SORTED OUT.
it is shit
Steve, Better invest in some barf bags and a vacation (perhaps to Chernobyl) if you're sick and tired of "whackos scaring people about nuclear power" and all its liabilities. We're clearly the majority in this country, so prepare for the future: no investment in an exorbitantly expensive, ecologically unsustainable source of energy. The only radiant energy needed comes from the sun, and direct energy transformation from solar insolation, as from wind and solar, is far more efficient to generate energy than is splitting atoms. You say you're an engineer, but how did you ever pass physics? So, while you may be willing to expose yourself and your genetic lineage to toxic ground and surface water (e.g., what's happening right now in the Columbia River basin), cancers, and birth defects, all while enriching corporations at the expense of clearly more sustainable and healthy alternatives, you don't speak for most of us in this country who are perfectly capable of thinking clearly, something you've failed to do here.
Steve, Better invest in some barf bags and a vacation (perhaps to Chernobyl) if you're sick and tired of "whackos scaring people about nuclear power" and all its liabilities. We're clearly the majority in this country, so prepare for the future: no investment in an exorbitantly expensive, ecologically unsustainable source of energy. The only radiant energy needed comes from the sun, and direct energy transformation from solar insolation, as from wind and solar, is far more efficient to generate energy than is splitting atoms. You say you're an engineer, but how did you ever pass physics? So, while you may be willing to expose yourself and your genetic lineage to toxic ground and surface water (e.g., what's happening right now in the Columbia River basin), cancers, and birth defects, all while enriching corporations at the expense of clearly more sustainable and healthy alternatives, you don't speak for most of us in this country who are perfectly capable of thinking clearly, in evidence here with your clearly biased and uninformed opinion.
Nuclear Power Plants contribute to global warming in two ways: coolong tower vapors, and transportation exhausts in the nuclear fuel cycle. Power plants require prodigious amounts of water from local waterways to change the steam in the generators back into water to return it to the reactor core. Hotter river water passes to cooling towers which spew clouds of vapor into the air, which contributes to global warming. Transporting uranium from mines to enrichment plants (which themselves run on coal-generated electricity), then to fuel rod processing, then fuel assemblies are sent to reactors all over the country; all require fossil fuels. The NPP is not an island; its support processes count too. Long turm storage of biologically dangerous spent fuel, without the prospect of a storage facility that passes muster no solved. In my view it's the cost, construction time, the coal, the clouds, the old paradyme quality of the option.
I'm an engineer, and I've worked with radioactive materials for years. They are very safe when handled properly. It would not bother me to live near a nuclear plant whatsoever. I'm sick & tired of the whackos scaring people about nuclear power.
I agree with the first posters assessment of the containers and the need to have one site rather than storage at many nuclear plant sites.I disagree that these sites are unguarded or unsecure.I have a brother-in-law and a nephew who work as guards at a nuclear plant and what they are allowed to tell me refutes the arguement that these sites or unprotected or unguarded.
The Yucca Flats site is NOT a secure site though.About 6 or 8 months ago a fault line was discovered UNDER the site,which makes it possible for an earthquake to split open under Yucca Flats and release radioactive waste to be dispersed into the ground and could be released into the air.Can you imagine the destruction if the waste became airborne?The winds in this country are prevailing westerlies and could and probably would put the most populated parts of our country in the downwind of radioactive wast.Destroying people,water,and croplands.Think about that one for more than a moment.
Your position on transport of nuclear waste is dead wrong. Use of well tested canisters that have undergone crash tests that exceed anything that trucks or rail cars would encounter is far superior to leaving high level waste where it is in unsecured sites around the country.
I'm not an advocate of new nuclear plants except when there is no alternative. I would not approve of any new use of nuclear until we solve the waste disposal problem. But to stand in the way of safely sequestering high level waste in the best facility we've got is plain nuts.