The dangers of people dying of a nuclear power plant meltdown (factoring in the chances of one occuring) from any one facility are equivelant to the entire population of the Earth consuming one extra gram of fat.

Compare this to the huge health risks in coal and oil extraction, the environmental damage done by its burning, and the number of people who die as a direct result of inhaling the carbon monoxide and dioxide produced as a waste product.

Coal and oil is incredibly dangerous compared to nuclear power and yet no one seems to complain about it.

The waste can be encased in lead and shoved down an old mine shaft (which we won't need any more once we close the coal mines).

Nuclear power is an excellant source of energy and is much more efficient than solar or wind. The real problem is that it is non-renewable but we have to assume that solar and wind will be more efficient by the time the uranium runs out.

@Ash Yes, Chernobyl was a horrible facility. It was handled badly, and it was in Russia.

@Zed I agree with you, however I think space would be a better option, as it takes 10,000 years for the waste to become safe.

Now another big problem is that if somehow there is an error, and a plantation explodes, the place is uninhabitable for a long time, unlike an explosion caused by an oil refinery.

I'm actually doing a historical fiction project right now for school on Chernobyl. The decisions that were made leading up to the accident were completely avoidable. I don't think we have to worry about another such incident.

Quote from Buttons

Now another big problem is that if somehow there is an error, and a plantation explodes, the place is uninhabitable for a long time, unlike an explosion caused by an oil refinery.

Yes but the odds of an explosion are next to none. The technology has vastly improved since the chenobyl disaster and even that was caused by engineers over-riding the safty devices.

Edit: yes I know Dragon just said that. I was outclicked by that much. [<----->]. And that's not very much.

Mistakes can always happen. Another explosion could occur with a malfunction that never occurred because the conditions weren't right.

There is always a risk with whatever you do, however sometimes the risk, no matter how unlikely, is too large and disastrous to be ignored.

Quote from Buttons

Mistakes can always happen. Another explosion could occur with a malfunction that never occurred because the conditions weren't right.

There is always a risk with whatever you do, however sometimes the risk, no matter how unlikely, is too large and disastrous to be ignored.

If there's a malfunction, then they have failsafes in place to prevent something bad from happening. And if those failsafes fail, they have failsafes for those failsafes.

There's no way we're going to be stupid enough to allow another Chernobyl.

Quote from Buttons

Mistakes can always happen. Another explosion could occur with a malfunction that never occurred because the conditions weren't right.

There is always a risk with whatever you do, however sometimes the risk, no matter how unlikely, is too large and disastrous to be ignored.

I'll grant you it's possible. If a series of pinpoint meteor showers hit in precisely the right way and no one notices then there is potential for a meltdown. I disagree, however, on your point that you cannot ignore it, however unlikely it is.

It is possible that for the last ten years aliens have been covertly altering our pens, nay all writing utensils, to attack us when they give the signal. If this were true the future of the human race could be at stake, yet I don't see people rushing to destroy their pencils just in case they have been modified. Is your favourite fountain pen encased in lead just in case it suddenly tries to bite you? I hope not or you should be sectioned.

I regretted my wording after I posted, but didn't have the effort to edit. :/

What I meant to say that sometimes a possible, but unlikely risk, that is as large as a meltdown, should be taken in account.

Ash and Zed, currently, they monitor in great detail the few nuclear power plants that they have, but once it is used to provide energy for the entire country, people get comfortable. Years and years after constant use of this source of energy, with many plantations around the country, the risk of a meltdown increases significantly. A worker gets comfortable with his job, and misses to check something. This could cause some type of malfunction.

And ash, you are said that there are fail safes, and fail safes for those fail safes, however you are assuming that we know everything about the plantations, everything that could go wrong. With constant use at a larger scale, many more problems are going to arise, that don't have fail safes.

Ionization Energy.
I've made a complex schematic and everything, and if it ever worked, it would make free energy forever without the need of the sun, wind, water, air, or anything. Problem is that it would cost a few thousand dollars to make a basic one, and it would only operate efficiently in a vacuum, so that would make the machine even more expensive.

Quote from Dinomut

Ionization Energy.
I've made a complex schematic and everything, and if it ever worked, it would make free energy forever without the need of the sun, wind, water, air, or anything. Problem is that it would cost a few thousand dollars to make a basic one, and it would only operate efficiently in a vacuum, so that would make the machine even more expensive.

Want to explain this concept? Ionization energy is basically just like magnets on a molecular scale.

There is some energy to be harvested from breaking and reforming bonds, but nothing that would be very efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thrusters
pretty much that but instead of shooting out of a nozzle and creating thrust the ions would power a sort of turbine to create electricity. In theory one could use strong electric fields to ionize the atoms, in which case it would use less energy than it created.
EDIT: this picture is the closest to what i was thinking:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Ion_engine.svg/800px-Ion_engine.svg.png

Quote from live2wrestle

i think we should find an alternative fuel and only use nuclear power if we are really desperate

get me bike hooked up to a generator.

and I'm not sure that nuclear plants explode, but if they use uranium, then obviously....yeah....

If the US is gonna use nuclear power (I care?) then they had better be prepared for an accident. You learn from mistakes right? So then we must be pretty dumb around that subject.... We only know two things!!

I'd say, have two main sources. Maybe a mix of wind and solar?

Its pretty weird thinking that we could use something well that we know so little about. My vote: don't use it.

But we don't know so little about it. The effects of an explosion combined with the efficiency and profits to be had in nuclear power have combined to make it one of the most heavily researched forms of energy generation. What we do know is that it's safer than coal or oil but most people seem to prefer them for some reason.