I live 30 miles from the most polluted nuclear site in America, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. While the idea of nuclear energy is intriguing and practical, there are huge drawbacks from my view. Maintaining our huge nuclear waste stockpile is incredibly expensive, and we'll be dealing with it, in practical terms, forever.
Hanford has never been profitable because of these costs, and since alternative forms of energy, wind, solar, tidal, etc. exist and are getting better all the time, I would rather invest in other forms of clean, renewable energy.
I think the fear of what to do with the nuclear waste scares a lot of people away from nuclear power. Also there is the fact that nuclear power can also be used by terrorists or terrorist nations is a concern. As someone else stated I think we are getting close to finding safe ways to store the nuclear waste.
I'll go with this being a good idea. Nuclear waste is a problem, but it is not as imminent or serious a problem as global warming. We can store the wastes in a reasonably safe way. It's not perfect and it MAY cause problems down the line, but if we don't have nuclear power we have to get more from fossil fuels and we know that those WILL cause problems. So I'm in favor of nuclear power.
Nuclear reactors are capable of producing a great deal of energy from a small amount of fuel-- one kilogram of Uranium-235 converted by nuclear processes contains approximately three million times the energy of a kilogram of coal that is burned by combustion. However, there are negative aspects to this type of energy. First of all, radioactive isotopes are produced when nuclear fission of uranium --235occurs. When the atoms are split, energy is released as well as neutrons that can be used to produce a chain reaction. As neutrons are released, they can bombard other uranium atoms and the fission reaction occurs again. It is a controlled reaction, unlike that of a nuclear bomb. However, many precautions must be taken in the nuclear power facility. There is a containment building which houses the equipment. Every part of the nuclear reactor, the fuel rods, the coolant, the reactor core, the spent fuel pool, etc. are potentially hazardous to the environment. Currently, there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear wastes and eventually, they will be buried in geologically safe locations such as in Nevada. However, there is a danger to groundwater and to the atmosphere and soil if something should go wrong and the wastes do not remain contained. Power plants that are older and must be closed are usually entombed and must be avoided for hundreds of years. Or, if dismantled, the equipment will have to be disposed of which is a real problem and it will be radioactive for years to come.
I'll go with nuclear power too. After all for just one Chernobyl, we've had 10 other BPs and Exxon Valdezes. And just the fact that a nuclear accident can be devastating makes people try harder to ensure that damage is averted. Though we’re quite a way from being able to harness the almost limitless power of fusion reactions, we are moving in that direction. And I’m sure none of us doubts the fact that the hydrocarbons we are burning now will run out and we no longer will have the option to attempt using them instead of moving on and adopting nuclear power.