Nuclear energy may be the answer, but what was the question?
99029
An answer may be to a problem, not just to a question.
637810
Well there are three of them in the US so we already use nuclear power. But nuclear can only be cost effective in highly populated areas. And normally iot is still safer and cheaper to use a petrolium based power.. Although we do have another option hydropower... (Hoover dam)
381702
Why raise such questions? Just to invite a harsh reaction from America or its supporters?\nIt is the right of the whole world to resolve their energy problems the best possible way.
235628
Most countries i believe have the technology. Its actually about producing it. I believe our government and the UN have treaties about the amount of nuclear power to have for each countries.
584806
we have them now.  submarines run on nuke power with an onboard reactor.  there are plenty of solar powered devices.  calculators come to mind.
437877
It is possible, but it will be a difficult road.  <---Get it.\n\nFirst Ethanol is a very small baby step, it won't save us.  It might burn cleaner and take slightly less oil to make, but the horrible gas mileage make you have to use more of it to get where you're going.\n\nHybrid technology is on to something.  Electricity is the way to go.  With the advancements of battery & motor technology, you will soon see electric cars and trucks out perform the internal conbution engine.  The current problem is the high voltages necesary to drive those motors make these cars potentially very dangerous for mechanics to repair.  They can also be very dangerous in an acident.\n\nSo my solution is nuclear energy.  But this scares too many people.  All you have to do is build several plants out in the desert that will provide enough electricity to power everything including: heating/cooling, transportation, manufacturing, and comercial consumption.  \n\nThis will make us more ecconimically independant (richer) so that we can develop better ways of cleaning or disposing of the nuclear waste products.  My vote is shooting it into the Sun.\n\nBush's solution really isn't one.  He has to politicise the issue to placate the American people while allowing American companies to retool, research & develop, and create a delivery system for a new power source.  The current problem isn't the alternate energy source as much as it is how do companies sell us that new source.
152530
NUCLEAR POWER\nIn the mid-1950s, nuclear physicists confidently predicted that nuclear energy would usher in a golden age for humanity: the cost of energy would be so low it would be "too cheap to meter." They predicted that, by the year 2000, there would be one thousand commercial reactors and one thousand "breeder" reactors producing unlimited amounts of power. Like the horse and buggy, oil and coal would become little more than historical curiosities.\n\nNuclear power has exceeded some of these early predictions. Its safety record, when compared, say, to the airline industry, is vastly superior. Compared to the air pollution and acid rain caused by the coal industry, its environmental record is admirable. It currently generates over 15 percent of the nation's electricity and has thus reduced the dependence on scarce fossil fuels. Some claim it may also reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect.\n\nIronically, however, this same industry is also teetering on the verge of collapse. Contrary to previous expectations, the United States now has over one hundred commercial reactors, the breeder reactor program is defunct, and there has not been a single reactor order since 1978, one year before an accident at Three Mile Island. Over one hundred reactor orders have been canceled, and costs have escalated so that the Nine Mile Point reactor in upstate New York will soar beyond $6 billion, or about six times the cost of a coal plant of similar power.\n\nNever in modern history has a major technology, with the full backing of industry and the government, come to such an abrupt halt. Well over $100 billion has been invested in nuclear energy, yet the people of California voted to close down an operating reactor, and the people of Long Island, New York, are closing down the fully completed $5 billion Shoreham reactor before it opens.\n\nUtilities that invested heavily in nuclear power have been driven to the wall by its mounting costs; the Washington Public Power Supply System went bankrupt, and the Long Island Lighting Co. incurred billions in losses. What went wrong? \n\nAlthough the reasons for this unprecedented collapse are complex, many of the problems can be traced to unwise decisions made in the 1950s. Specifically, when the Nautilus nuclear submarine sailed effortlessly beneath the North Pole, it touched off a stampede among corporations interested in the commercial development of nuclear energy. The 1960s marked the "gold rush" in reactors, when General Electric, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, and Babcock-Wilcox scrambled to bring this technology to the marketplace. In fact, Con Edison even applied for a license to build its Ravenswood reactor in the heart of New York City opposite the United Nations.\n\nBecause large plants are more economical than small ones, designers started with the small (40-megawatt) Nautilus reactor and essentially scaled it up many times to the current 1,000-megawatt design, without clearly thinking through the consequences. Decades later, this would lead to three serious problems. First, in retrospect, scaling up the Nautilus design was a poor choice to begin with because the light-water Nautilus reactor is highly susceptible to a rapid melting of the uranium core. Alternate designs (e.g., gas-cooled high-temperature gas reactors) were much more stable against a meltdown but were ignored. Second, this meant that elaborate and expensive emergency core cooling systems had to be installed, which would later add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the reactor and delay construction for several years. Third, no attention was paid to how reactors would be decommissioned after thirty to forty years of use or where the radioactive nuclear waste would be disposed of.\n\nIn 1957, a prophetic, but secret, report was issued by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, called wash—740. It estimated that a meltdown, a Class 9 accident, could cause $7 billion in pro
92985
Several, but, the answer you seek is likely Iridium.
428972
Alternate energy sources are our next step to stabilize our economy and lessen the dependence on other countries to provide us that need. However, they are extremely costly and hard to come by. Wind mills are a disaster in terms of the amount of space it needs to operate. Solar panels are not effecient everywhere, say Seattle or Alaska. Nuclear fission is the next step but since it is potentially dangerous as nuclear bombs, it's being closely monitored thus dampening the research process. I guess we are still depended on oil is because it is so universal and exremely easy to use and harness everywhere. I agree with you, if I had enough money to fund researches like these, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
1067569
WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ,TO ANSWER THE QUESTION
124587
I am going to take a guess and say the moon.\n\nNo, I am kidding, it's the Sun\n\nSolar energy can be converted in to electricity and heat.
662679
We all know that if they have the nuclear tech the bomb will be used to destroy many people....if they are really concerned  about energy (especially electrical) solar energy will be great for that part of the world...I am sure the U.S.A will help in this project.
1076095
Yes but it would take a some time and a lot of effort and money invested into alternative sources in energy . We know that we have the capabilities with hydro electric wind solar and nuclear energies but they need more time and effort the only problem is with global warming Do we have the time?
427986
Why should we tell Iran what to do.\nWe should just leave them alone.\nIt's there choice to decide what to use nuclear power for.
898502
Nuclear Engineering is by far the way to go.  The demand for nuclear energy is projected to greatly increase in the next ten years.  With countries such as China planning to invest over $50 billion over this same time period the U.S. will have no choice but to begin to follow this trend.  Companies like Westinghouse are designing the next generation power plants and already have a new design passed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Our dependence on fossil fuel is too great and nuclear power is the next huge industry.
601243
Nuclear, beyond any shadow of a doubt. \n\nThe US has appreciable Uranium reserves itself, and major Uranium producing nations such as Australia are already favored trading partners and stable western democracies.\n\nForget corn. It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the ethanol replaces. I. other words using corn for energy means we have to use MORE oil. We currently produce corn ethanol as an economic subsidy for corn growers. If we didn't make ethanol we would have to dump that corn in the ocean. But Corn ethanol is NOT a fuel source. See the first article below.\n\nHydrogen is iffy. We can only obtain hydrogen by splitting water using massive amounts of electricity. That electricity has to be obtained using normal power stations, usually coal. As a result hydrogen is like ethanol: it takes far more fossil fuel to produce than it actually replaces. That makes it a possible oil substitute but very unwise WRT greenhouse gas emissions unless coupled with lots of nuclear power stations.\n\nSolar and wind are never going to be major players. There simply isn't enough land available to make more than a minor contribution and because the supplies are erratic we would still need other power stations to make up the regular shortfalls. See the second article below.\n\nNucelar is the only real solution.
391381
The answer would be the answer but it would be made from the question.