Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The most common method today is through nuclear fission, though other methods include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. All current methods involve heating a working fluid such as water, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion. Today, more than 15% of the world's electricity comes from nuclear power, over 150 nuclear-powered naval vessels have been built, and a few radioisotope rockets have been produced. Some countries in the world currently use nuclear power. However, high construction costs have hindered the development of nuclear power in many countries. Yet, rising concerns regarding global warming and energy prices, however, nuclear energy has seen renewed attention as alternative form of energy. The world energy demand is projected to grow by 50% by 2030. To meet the short-term demand, the use of coal and other fossil fuels will increase. The main question and debate is whether nuclear energy should be included as a major component of 21st century plans to combat global warming and to help us meet the growing energy demand? Many questions frame this debate: Is nuclear power helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Can nuclear power scale to become a serious energy replacement to coal electric power (the main source of electricity globally)? Does the construction of nuclear plants contribute to global warming in any significant ways? What about the mining of Uranium, and what general environmental risks might this pose? What concerns surround nuclear waste? Can these concerns be addressed? How long can we expect supplies of Uranium and nuclear energy to last? Centuries? Even if it will run out in the future and is not "renewable", is it still worth pursuing now (particularly in the face of global warming)? Do nuclear plants pose a risk of "melting down", or have modern nuclear plants eliminated the risk of another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disaster? Are there any radiation risks to local communities and to workers at nuclear plants? What about the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants? What weapons proliferation risks surround nuclear energy? Should this prevent the further development of nuclear energy, particularly if it is believed that nuclear energy is part of the solution to the global warming crisis?

I would just say something like: Liberals can't really comprehend complex concepts, and nuclear power plants have proven that they are safe and reliable. Just like airplane travel is much safer than travel by automobiles, when a plane crashes and makes world news, everyone jumps to the conclusion that if you get on an airplane, that you are going to die.

First of all, Most people you ask on Y/A are idiots. Lets face it, most people don't know S**T about nuclear power but what they are told. You say 'Nuclear" to some people and these moron's think mushroom cloud. They have no idea what they are talking about.

Take Tobe's answer for instance, alot of it is pure crap.

1. First of all, Nuclear plants can supply clean, reliable energy for decades. People get paid good money for storing the radioactive material.......which normally would be the expended control rods or used reactor core. But there are standards to this kind of storage so there's no grounds to whining about it.

2. Its also mute that government only insures plants since Civilian nuclear plants can't even afford main loop cutout valves (used mainly for shutting down the core and as a safety feature). Since civilian plants aren't expected to be 'shut down' much, and the high cost, this would explain why the government alone could afford to support such insurance.

3. Using tremendous amounts of water is BS, sure, there might be lots of water used, but the primary loop is a closed loop, meaning the water is self contained and doesn't go anywhere else. The cooling towers cool through heat exchangers, but if someone whines about this, you might as well cry about all the other high uses of water (like car washes, evaporators, condensers, etc, etc)

4. Sure, there are alot of "green" or renewable sources of energy out there, but if Tobe actually looked at how much of each are actually used, he'd realize that they don't even make a dent is the amount of energy America uses and that oil provides. Wind is a joke, solar has many issues regarding price and transmission lines.

6. Nuclear power takes ALOT less real estate than wind farms or solar towers for power, so "unsightly" is not valid.

5. It isn't much of a matter regarding "bringing down property values" since we've all seen how politicians in rich neighborhoods have lobbied to NOT put anything unsightly in THIER neighborhood. So a power plant usually ends up in the back yard of the poor in the first place. Not an issue.

7. I haven't seen a vast amount of 'simply shut down reactors' that are abandoned.

8. This is plain ignorance. As already stated, they do not simply bury rods or cores in the earth. Only a moron or fool would beleive that.

9. Depends on where the Vaults are. Has Tobe done any research to see where they faults lie ? It is pretty IRRESPONSIBLE to make unsubstantiated claims when you have no clue.

10. Another stupid remark. Radioactive waste is much different than corrosives. There is NO support that they will eat through containers or leak. This is the kind of stupidity people think of when they see movies.

Now that we have dispelled the BS rantings of a left wing prick whom knows NOTHING about nuclear power, and my credentials is that I use to be a reactor operator and do plant mainenance. I can tell you that Tobe doesn't know S**T.

As for HELP like you requested, They are alot safer. There's only been but few accidents with power plants. Cernobyl doesn't count because we use pressurized water reactors. NOT sodium reactors.

3 mile island wasn't much of an accident at all, it was mainly a release of steam, and although there wasn't a confirmation that they were or were not radioactive, NO ONE DIED. As for Japans recent accident, they got hit with an unprecidented double whammy on natural disasters and, I might point out, DID not have all possible safety features. The golden rule of reactor cores is NEVER UNCOVER THE CORE. It must be covered by water at ALL TIMES. Obviously Japan didn't want to spend the money for reactor fill systems that are designed to do exactly this. FRANCE has a great safety record if there are still doubters.

The only pollution created by reactors is contaminations, which by and large is contained within the reactor. The primary loop is sealed, if there's a primary to secondary loop contamination, it only gets as far as the steam generators, which is a problem for the plant workers, NOT the community at large.

water released from a reactor (not done often) has to meet a Discernable Minimum Activity level which means the water is more pure than that found in nature. After decades of use you will have expended rods or cores, but there are storage facilities for these.

Jobs.........well, you can work anywhere you want to as long as you have the training. There aren't alot of colleges with nuclear training. And fewer yet that have a real 'hands on' to any.

I have many reasons against: 1) by-products (radioactive waste) take centuries to become inert, 2) nuclear insurance are provided by the GOVERNMENT (most people don't know this), no private insurance company will insured a nuclear power plant (fact) so plant owners have little incentive to be due diligence in maintaining plants since the public pays for all liability; plant owners keep the profit while sticking the public for damages, 3) it uses a tremendous amount of water as coolant to keep the plant at constant low temperature, 4) there are many, many green or sustainable energy available now; the only reason nuclear is being pushed is strictly for the benefit of the nuclear business, not the users or the environment, 5) brings down property value, 6) unsightly, 7) decommissioning a nuclear power plant is virtually none existing--it cost too much so most power plants just sit shut down as it, 8) spent fuel rods and radioactive waste has to be buried deep in the earth--who know what can happen while they are down there rotten away and they are usually buried on public land--again, at public's expense beyond monetary value, 9) deep deposit vaults of radioactive deposits are not immune from earth quakes, problems there, 10) radioactive waste will eventually eats away the canisters that holds them and leak to who know where. These are some reason AGAINST nuclear power. You will have to rewrite your paper. Here's a conclusion for not using nuclear: there are too many available green energy and more sustainable alternatives: solar, wind, tidal wave, ocean wave, shore wave, hydrogen fuel cell (my favor), biofuel from compose, biomicro organism fuel, magnetic, geo, etc. Think of the many businesses that could spring from such energy industries and how they can spike innovation and creativity. If we move into developing green energy we will not have an economic problem in this country. Save the world, save the planet, and save your future--rewrite your answer and teach other in your class.

dsadas

well said, raymond.

I had to write an essay on whether we are for or against nuclear power. We had to write an introduction, a paragraph on each of 3 reasons why we are for against it and a conclusion. I'm for nuclear power and i have my 3 reasons; little pollution, safety(their A LOT safer than people think and safer than they used to bee) and job opportunities. Now I just need help with my conclusion. My teacher said not to write a conclusion like "these are my reasons, i hope you agree". PLEASE HELP!!!