Is nuclear power the ultimate answer to all the diminishing energy resources(like fossil fuels etc)?
923052
Probably not the ultimate answer, but down the road a generation or two, they might look at it as a band-aid approach we used to get us by an energy crisis.\nIt is pretty well documented that usually brilliant discoveries come about when they are looking for one thing and find something else.\nSo, even in India, I doubt that nuclear power is going to be the ultimate solution.
468061
I think a country floating on oil does not need to spend millions on nuclear power.\n\nI think the last countries that need to enrich uranium are countries with suicide bombers.\n\nI think things are getting out of control, seriously.
67954
There is a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear WEAPONS.  Energy will benefit everyone greatly until a meltdown of course.  However researching nuclear energy and experimenting with it leads to some bad people having volitile materials which COULD BE used for a dirty bomb or full out nuclear weapon.  To answer the 2nd part of the question.. what do you THINK the US will do to stop them?  We will warn them once, ask the UN and get denied, then take matters into our own hands.  I vote move to Canada.
118189
Nuclear power is a 'clean' power in that, under normal circumstances, the only emisson is steam from the reactor. However, if there is a meltdown, like the one in Russia a while ago, the effect could be very threatning.
630222
They haven't yet.  They've only produced low grade enriched uranium which, right now, could only be used to generate electricity.\n\nBut they are real close....
28921
Coal, Oil, Uranium etc are earths natural resources, and definitly renewable by nature. But are they renewable at the rate we are using them, thats a question to ponder upon! :-)
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.
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.
148104
Well, Yes i agree with the rest about reducing our dependency on crude oil, and start finding some clean technology  to produce energy, the solution lies in various methods.\n\na) developed countries should promote industries or companies with incentives to  switch over to solar energy or wind power.\n\nb) countries must make optimum  use of tidal energy( energy created through tides at seashores) to produce energy in a industrial level.\n\nc)hydro electric although is second most exploited source, the full potential is not fully tapped yet, countries around the world should utilise it to the optimum level.\n\nd) Developed countries as well as developing countries must set aside a certain percentage of thier budget to set up clean energy such as setting up wind mills,to generate power\n\ne) Nuclear energy is still a disputed energy as it involves  potential risk of exposure to radiation, and its high cost o f operations,Yet the energy produced outweight all odds, it \nproduces enormous energy with little fuel.\n \nf) Countries should fast track the process  of finding an efficient alternative to Petrol(gasoline) or Diesel as Automobile fuel, right now the research is on hydrogen fuel cells , which seems promising, Yet the research lacks impetus from most of the developed nations.\ne) Countries (developed& developing) should start untilizing the Bio-deisel extraction process in massive scale,( that is extraction of Ethenol which can be got extracted from certain plants and certain seeds). The use of Ethenol will ease the stress on crude oil.
978481
Barring a nuclear winter or other catastrophic event, we'll still be around, polluting, smoking, and drinking.  Humans are pretty hardy creatures, and have lived through plagues, Ice Ages, etc.  While we are using our resources at an exponential rate, I do think this will necessitate some of the newer technologies already in the works.  We'll use fossil fuels until we can't any more, but there's always other forms of energy.  Right now, its too expense to implement mass change across the globe, but soon we won't have a choice, and I can't fathom that we as people (who have been around for hundreds of thousands of years) would suddenly fail to adapt.  That's what we were meant to do- to populate this planet.  \n\nSo no, unless a catastrophe of unheard-of magnitude strikes us, we'll still be around.  People for centuries have said the end times are upon us.  I'm still waiting....
644601
Nuclear energy is not renewable, once the fuel is spent it can't be recharged (at least not easily).
460294
Depends on what for.  Nuclear fission is great for generating electricity.  Biodiesel has lots of promise as a motor vehicle fuel (not to mention would be great for the US Agriculture industry).  Solar power can greatly reduce the amount of power individual homeowners have to purchase from larger providers (but the initial investemnt is expensive).  Probably a combination of Fossil Fuel alternatives would be better than adopting a single alternative replacement.
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.
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
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)
811375
actually....no.... \nthe power range of nuclear fission and the operational MHZ of a generator and completely differant. Your comapring apples and oranges.
153195
Assuming we haven't found or developed other energy sources? The biggest energy-consuming societies fall apart, can't grow or transport food, most of their people starve. World population and technological levels fall to sustainable levels or, more likely, below.