1. Where do you stand on the use of nuclear power? For it? Against it? Ok, but not in my neighborhood? Why or?
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.
248178
A nuclear power station in Iran is not bad. However the 'fuel' (enriched uranium or plutonium) can be used for composing an atomic bomb. The politicians are afraid for that. So do I.
122860
Nuclear weapons will never be used in a real war between two equally matched forces, as it hasn't even been used in various small/bush wars such as Iraq and Vietnam. I think it's a useless weapon, and a very dangerous one at that too. Imagine the power one lunatic could have if they got one. On the other hand, you couldn't use it in a real war because that would essentially guarantee your own destruction, as you could never be 100% sure you can eliminate every country's nukes. It's a scary weapon, and we haven't seen the last of it yet...
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.
1086575
I feel uncomfortable with any nation having nuclear weapons.  If you are refering to general technology, such as power plants, then not necessarily, because there are a lot of countries without democratically elected governments that have nuclear technology.  It does not matter who has the technology, its how they use it that is important.
1071855
The previous posted is confused.\n\n"Solar power is still the best alternative energy source, and it is because of that that it's still decades away from being fully researched and employed in our everyday lives"\n  --Solar energy is used with great success in the western US were large areas of land are available to be used for solar projects. \n\n"why,..because the Big oil barrons would be out of a job,...plain and simple"\n   --It is inefficient use as a large power source.  An overcast day can hinder generation from the sites, plus the large amount of area required focusing enough light to heat water cells or even PV cells.  Let's not count out nighttime.  \n\n"It's now 2006,.. Over 30 years since the oil and gas embargo of the 70's and we still have not learned our lessions, Oil company's and big business have effectively lobbied our lawmakers into doing nothing and here we are,.. now paying $ 3.00 and more . per gallon, $ 70.00 a barrel for oil, ask your parents about the gas embargo of the 70's,...then ask them why nothng has changed"\n   --Then why are cars getting more and more fuel efficient??  I'm all for driving big block Chevy's, but they seemed to have been taken off the market until most recently.  Why is that??  If the rate of inflation was applied to the cost of gasoline since 1970, the current price per gallon would be well over $5.00.  Oil has been somewhat stable up until the mid to late 1990's.\n\nOh, and don't forget to subtract the taxes your lawmakers have placed on each gallon of gas since 1970.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
44490
no politician in the US wants to come out in favor of nuclear reactors.  americans recoil in fear at the mention of nuclear energy plants.  everyone thinks they're a great idea - somewhere else.  NIMBY - not in MY back yard!  doesn't matter that they're clean - environmentalists protest and fret about meltdowns and waste anyway; people think the plants are unsafe even though there has never been a single accident in the united states ever.\n\ni think the biggest reason is that the fossil-fuel companies donate a lot of money to congressional campaigns.  so nuclear options get squashed because of corrupt backroom dealings, but the public face put on is that 'americans just dont want them.'  this, however, is untrue - a majority of people DO want nuclear reactors.  i think it's just typical of washington.\n\nnevertheless the cost of fossil fuel-based energy is spiraling out of control - and before long we are going to have to switch to producing some amount of energy via nuclear reactors.  if you ask me it should be sooner rather than later.
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.
170042
Nuclear energy was originally designed to kill. It got the USA out of WW11 sooner than most expected. It has been killing ever since. Did you know we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant in app. 30 yrs. why? It's a detrement to society. Do you want a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in your backyard? No, of course not. Iran for that matter I believe NO Country should be allowed to ever build anything again that creates Radioactive Waste. Did you know your Microwave is Radioactive? Try taking one to the scrapyard. Most scrapyards have Geiger Counters in place now days. Why can't we all ride the green wave? Solar,Wind,Wave Action. To most people it's still a novelty but one day it will be common-place if we can keep the powers that be from destroying this Planet we call Home.Think GREEN! Peace to all.
694315
I do.  What are we going to do though?  With a rising population you have to put them somewhere right?  I'm for setting aside large chunks of land as reserves now while we have them to set aside.  Unfortunately, our culture's attitude towards land usage and the environment in general is ignore, ignore, ignore, panic.  I don't think we've reached panic yet, but we will. I'm not for the grid system either.  I think that is one of the worst ideas of all time.  Like in Arizona, for example, the land that can be developed, and the land that can't, are arranged in a checkerboard.  So what happens to animals that roam or migrate?  When all the 'boxes' of land have been developed around the reserved block the animals inside are cut off - the population either has to move to another block or it dwindles and possibly dies off.  Plus they have all kinds of run ins with the surrounding communities.  Some people that live in these communities think that it doesn't adversely affect the environment but it does.  They say "What do you mean?  The deer aren't dying off - I just had one in my backyard the other day."  They don't see how that is a problem.  The checkerboard is not a solution - it just worsens the effect of development.  And Phoenix is a classic example of urban sprawl.  Like a cancerous tumor its neverending grid of streets spreads out in all directions.  We aren't there yet - and we may not see it in our lifetimes - but the earth is so going to kick all of our a**e* eventually.   And, as a cultural, we will stand bug-eyed and bewildered - scratching our collective empty head over how it came to this.
487413
Ask the following question: who's the ONLY nuke power in the mid-east, has a former superpower as a lapdog and doesn't want any other nuke power in the mid-east?
40761
Is this a question, or a US bashing, I'm not sure. I often ask myself that same question though. The most honest answer might be because we can control our technology, and we have the power to control proliferation too because we see it as a danger. In general, it's probobly not a good idea for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have Atom bombs. Do you really think nothing bad would happen if every country had enough bombs to destroy the planet? Yea that would be swell. \n\nI do have to admit there is a certain irony to the United States being so controling about nukes. We say we can't trust others to have them, but who's the ONLY county crazy enough in the history of the world to actually use one... Yep.
658816
Unbelievable how many idiot libs stick up for those Kennedy crapbags.  Where did Kennedy get the idea alternate energy sources are a good idea as long as they are not in his neighborhood?
299991
How about asking them about the US plan to provide nuclear fuel to India? \nWar in Iraq questions are always good... how about, "what will it take for the EU to begin security control in Iraq?"\nHow about something about Belarus and their recent elections.  "What steps is the EU taking to eliminate dictatorships in Europe?"
588608
Why should we attack them, except in retaliation?\n\nAnd if we retaliate, especially to a nuke, we should have a bunch of boomers (nuke subs) off their coast and let fly. Turn it into a smoking radioactive hole.\n\nThat should settle the problem, no?\n\nBecause I'm tired of seeing American blood and money freeing ingrates the world over.
293349
Really the only things people don't like about nuclear power are the issues of the nuclear waste and where to place it. It is also rather expensive, but it is much safer than most people believe. Many people do not want nuclear power around them because they fear the radiation or the possibility of a meltdown. When a lot of people hear the words nuclear, atomic, or reaction, the first thing that comes to mind is a bomb. Of course, the reaction in the plant works in the same way (nuclear fission), but it is safely contained, and the barrels of waste are removed from the site and unforunately, slowly decay over the course of thousands of years.