is nuclear energy a  viable energy source and how if it is and why not if it isnt?
609686
I think that nuclear energy source is a viable energy source as long as we do everything we can to make it as safe as possible.  If we do nothing to find new energy sources our economy and our way of life can deteriorate.
1049394
Yeah it's http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm\n\nthere is some good facts there
228704
try looking up "nuclear" energy..you will find more info i am sure.
90283
asking if cold fusion works you must first ask if fusion works, as of yet the technology to meld two atoms together does not exist, however, it is expected that in the near future fusion will exist and possibly be a perfect, safe, and efficient from of energy. At presant the only type of nuclear energy avliable is fision, splitting two atoms apart
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!
401394
lets start with advantages.......\n   for power generation\n   alternate to non-renewable energy sources\n   \ndisadvantages....\n  expensive\n  harmful to environment(radiation)\n  risky\n\nenergy is produced in nuclear reactor by fission mechanism......
412356
Kyoto intent is great, but until an economically viable way to implement that intent, it is unworkable.  Same goes for Renewable Energy & The Hydrogen Economy.  The Hydrogen based transportation industry is a big joke that the press was parading as the entrance vehicle to The Hydrogen Economy.\n\nYes there is a way to make Renewable Energy economically viable, but one has to start from the reality to require it to be directly economically viable means that our energy bill has to skyrocket after installation.  The amount of energy to purify & crystlize silicon is a given.  One has to do the utility design to create sell-able spin-off benefits to subsidize the cost of infrastructure.  \n\nI can only fine one place on this planet that has the ingredients.  The time that it can be done is drawing to an end, because it requires a triving economy to start the change over.  The change over has to take decades to insure the builder of the solar collecters is economically viable.
70676
Natural gas is a very good source for energy, but it is non-renewable with our current technology. \n\nHydro-electric is a viable energy source for electricty. It will always be available unless the water cycle ends.\n\nCoal is a good source for heat and power, but it does have some polluting characteristics in its natural state.\n\nNuclear is good for electricity production, steam generation and heat (from steam), it does leave residual waste, that is more concentrated radioactivity than what occurs naturally.\n\nFuel cells require power to produce but they work very well. They use readily available materials and can be scaled to the power output that is needed.\n\nGeothermal is good for heating houses and on a large scale in some areas for producing electricity. It is also a renewable power source.\n\nWind and solar are two more options that are becoming readily available for the end user. They are generally coupled with a battery system for calm periods of weather and night time.
226918
This is a debate we're going to have to have here in the US soon...are the risks of nuclear power worth the benefits.  I think there's nothing wrong with nuke power, having worked around it for several years in the early 90's.  I think irrational fear is nuclear power's biggest obstacle.  People fear what they cannot understand.  They see Chernobyl and think that's going to happen all over again in their backyard, when the fact of the matter is that modern nuke plants are as safe as any other industrial facility handling volatile materials.  The UK would be well served by building new nukes and opening up research on alternative power sources simultaneously.
214180
Nuclear power is very raw and easy to create.  Very little has to be done to provide immense amounts of power.  Infact, if more than necessary is done (say you move a certain part more than an inch), too much power can be produced, causing a nuclear meltdown.  \n\nI'm not the nuclear expert, so I won't go into specifics.  I fully believe that we will only run out of nuclear power if the Earth were to be no more.
310390
It is too bad that they have not been developed to their capacity. It is a concept whose time has come. Nuclear energy should be another alternative to fossil fuels, however too many crazies block that. But we need to cut our independence to oil so that the oil company's do no have such a death grip on us.
128043
Nuclear energy is not "cold", I am not sure what you meant by that.  The whole principle of how muclear energy is used to generate electrcity relies on the fact that it gives off a lot of heat.\n\nIt is also not too clean either.  The depleted nuclear waste posses a problem of where to dispose of it.  It will stay radio active for hundreds of thousands of years, so whereever you put it it needs to be out of the way and secure.  Right now, the government is planning to store the stock piles of nuclear waste deep underground under Yucca Mountain (in Nevada I think), but there is a lot of debate over this.\n\nAs for sustainable, perhaps not in the long run.  There is only so much fissionable material on Earth, it will run out eventually just like fossil fuels.  A more long term nuclear energy sourse would rely on fusion, not fission, but this has yet to be practical.
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.
430638
Energy development is the ongoing effort to provide abundant and accessible energy, through knowledge, skills and constructions. When harnessing energy from primary energy sources and converting them into ever more convenient secondary energy forms, such as electrical energy and cleaner fuels, both quantity (harnessing more primary energy) and quality (more efficient conversion to secondary energy) are important.\n\nFuture energy development faces great challenges due to an increasing world population, demands for higher standards of living, demands for less pollution and a much-discussed end to fossil fuels. Without energy, the world's entire industrialized infrastructure would collapse; agriculture, transportation, waste collection, information technology, communications and much of the prerequisites that a developed nation takes for granted. A shortage of the energy needed to sustain this infrastructure could lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.\nEarth by night. Many parts of the world will demand energy as their economies develop.\nEnlarge\nEarth by night. Many parts of the world will demand energy as their economies develop.\n[edit]\n\nGeneral considerations\n\nAll the energy we consume is generated by using the four fundamental interactions of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force to create work. Fission energy and fusion energy are generated by electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force. In both cases the weak nuclear force provides significant energy through decay reactions immediately after (and during) the primary reactions. Most forms of terrestrial energy can be traced back to fusion reaction inside the sun, with the exception of tidal power, geothermal energy and nuclear power. Geothermal energy is believed to be generated primarily by radioactive decay inside the Earth[1]. Radioactive decay energy is generated by both the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Tidal energy comes from the gravitational potential energy of the Earth/Moon system.\n\nMost human energy sources today use energy from sunlight, either directly like solar cells or in stored forms like fossil fuels. Once the stored forms are used up (assuming no contribution from the three previous energy sources and no energy from space exploration) then the long-term energy usage of humanity is limited to that from the sunlight falling on Earth. The total energy consumption of humanity today is equivalent to about 0.1-0.01% of that. But humanity cannot exploit most of this energy since it also provides the energy for almost all other lifeforms and drives the weather cycle[2][3].\nU.S. energy consumption by sectors.\nEnlarge\nU.S. energy consumption by sectors.\n\nWorld energy production by source: Oil 40%, natural gas 22.5%, coal 23.3%, hydroelectric 7.0%, nuclear 6.5%, biomass and other 0.7%[4]. In the U.S., transportation accounted for 28% of all energy use and 70% of petroleum use in 2001; 97% of transportation fuel was petroleum[5].\n\nThe United Nations projects that world population will stabilize in 2075 at nine billion due to the demographic transition. Birth rates are now falling in most developing nations and the population would decrease in several developed nations if there was no immigration[6]. Still, economic growth probably requires a continued increase in energy consumption. Since 1970, each 1% increase in the Gross world product has yielded a 0.64% increase in energy consumption[7].\n\nIn geology, resources refer to the amount of a specific substance that may be present in a deposit. This definition does not take into account the economic feasibility of exploitation or the fact that resources may not be recoverable using current technology. Reserves constitute those resources that are recoverable using current technology. They can be recovered economically under current market conditions. This definition takes into account current mining technology and the economics of recovery
278635
Since we get more than half of our electricity from coal, that's an unlikely goal.  We are trying to find ways of burning coal more cleanly.\n\nNuclear power is a clean alternative to coal, but fears of a disaster have prevented any nuclear power plant from being built in the US for many years.
962741
For the most part, I'm okay with nuclear power.  It tends to be clean, and is actually very safe when the guidelines are followed and standards are met.  My only fear is that guidelines and standards bow down to politics all too often.\n\nI think that, in general, we need to know a little about a lot.  As an example: I might not know everything about the engine of my car, but I know enough to recognize when there's a problem, and what that problem might be.
1114274
Tough question, however Solar and Wind are viable sources of energy where available.  BioMass and utilization of human waste are also viable sources of future energy.  There's some speculation about technology to harness the energy contained in Ocean Water (currents) though I am not an engineer and don't understand it at all.  Finally, eliminating wastefulness and extending the usefulness of exsiting fuel types will assure at least in the short term enough for all (this is particularly aimed at the USA as the largest consumer of existing fuels per capata in the World, the question is why)