I feel like we should use more nuclear energy to power are world. There are manny advantages to using nuclear energy: One of witch it can be vary clean when the right fuel is used. The second is it provides lots of relatively clean energy because  it is a closed system, which means that no CO2 is produces lessing the effect of global worming. There also are some disadvantages such as nuclear wast. One misconception about nuclear wast is that it is the spent nuclear rods form the reactor, but thats just a small part of it. It really mostly is the equipment used to be around the reactor, like clothing tools and the water that is used to run it. The second disadvantage is the risk of a melt down, which is the main reason why we have not used them that much. With proper R&D nuclear energy can revolutionize the way we make energy, and will help with global worming.

This would be a great way for a solution to carbon emissions. I agree that this would be an ideal solution. However, nuclear waste does more harm than good. In the last decade, there have been about 11 nuclear meltdowns. These meltdowns are mostly caused by earthquakes that have hit the area or just poor management or design of the reactors. These meltdowns can cause allot of radioactive waste to enter the oceans and destroy the marine life living in it. These meltdowns can also affect us because the marine life that we eat carries the radioactive waste. This radioactive waste can cause mutations in the body and most times lead to cancer.

This solution would be a great idea to get rid of CO2 emissions. But first, we need to design a way to manage the radioactive waste that is coming from these reactors. This would be the next step to creating a cleaner world.

I agree that we should try to use more nuclear energy for power. However, the method you are suggesting is called fission; which takes larger elements such as uranium atoms and splits them into smaller elements, creating mass energy. Although it is efficient in creating lots of energy without CO2 pollution it creates large amounts of radioactive waste that we still don’t know how to get rid of (accept for storing it in secluded places, which will grow larger over time). If we were to use a type of nuclear power as an energy source it would be best to use the type called fusion power. Fusion power is energy created by fusing smaller elements together to created larger, denser elements. It is a much cleaner way of creating energy than fission, since fusion doesn’t create the large amounts of radioactivity. However, the only down side to fusion power is that it is still hard to control the mass energy that is being produced. Although, we are starting to get better at it and will hopefully be able to store and use fusion energy sometime in the future.

I agree with you but there is still that risk of it blowing up, and that risks much more than a regular energy plant. I think places should be using it more but it should be used with caution and maybe only a few plants. If we start using it as major energy all at once there's the risk of hurting people and places because we still don't know all the risks.

That is true, there is always a risk of something going wrong and the potential danger of explosions. However it is still better than a regular energy plant which could also have a melt down and create large amounts of nuclear waste. Also, this type of energy is not going to be installed as a major energy source for a long time from now, since they are still creating safer ways to contain the energy.

I see your point. I understand that using nuclear energy can be a way to avoid CO2 pollution, but I don't think this is a good idea. Nuclear plants are very dangerous and have disastrous effects when they melt down. During a nuclear meltdown, radioactivity contaminates all the surrounding plants, animals, and humans. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_r … ted_States), 56 nuclear power plant incidents have occurred from 1952 to 2009 in the US alone. We cannot risk this happening again in the future. So, instead of using nuclear energy, we should keep using solar and wind energy. These energy sources have no risk of melting down or causing deadly effects to the environment. Instead, they help it.

I agree with you in that I think we need to use more nuclear energy, and I think with proper safety precautions, they have the potential to provide large amounts of energy with little environmental degradation. A lot of concern is expressed about the risk of nuclear accidents and fallout, but nuclear energy, despite its shortcomings, is still the best option. Nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are extremely publicized events that show a graphic side to nuclear energy, but the only conventional alternative to nuclear energy is fossil fuel, which causes even more problems. The American Lung Association and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) claim that 13,000 people die each year from coal pollution, and coal ash, the main by-product of coal generators, contains large amounts of arsenic and other toxic chemicals. What should also be noted are the different types of nuclear reactors and their trade-offs: not all reactors are equal in terms of risk. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are a type of reactor that use thorium as fissile material and liquid fluoride as a co olant. One major and relevant advantage to these types of reactors is their operating pressure. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors operate at a low pressure, which means that in the event of a core failure, the containment building won't expand enough to blow up. This means that there are never any violent pressure changes, like what happened in Fukushima. Another advantage to liquid fluoride thorium reactors is the waste they produce. A lot of people cite concerns over dangerous and abundant nuclear waste, but this is not a very big problem for liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which produce cesium-137 and strontium-90 as a waste product. Cesium-137 has the longer half life out of the two, and it is only 30.17 years. By comparison, the waste product of a normal light-water uranium reactor is plutonim-239, with a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years. The amount of waste produced is also significantly less for liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which produce only 15 kg per GWe-year. Compare this to the 300kg of nuclear waste created in a conventional reactor. Among these two major safety advantages, thorium is also very hard to turn into a weapon, as opposed to uranium or plutonium. This means that thorium reactors can be applied on a scale that conventional reactors cannot, and still be safe. There are many more reasons why liquid fluoride reactors are better than both conventional nuclear reactors and conventional energy production, but the main idea is this: not all nuclear reactors are made equal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fl … um_reactor
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/the-coal-hard-facts

nuclear energy is a cool concept, but like other people have mentioned, it is good on paper but controversial when it is put to use. Along with the accidents, (Chernobyl, Fukushima Daichi, Three Mile Island, etc.), there is also the cost. Some of these plants can range from 800 million dollars all the way to 10 billion. Including the cost, these can take anywhere from 5 to 10 years to build to completion. Nuclear waste and the need for a water source to cool it also poses a risk to marine wildlife and other ecosystems that live in the area. I am totally for the use nuclear energy, I think it is a great way to clean energy, but the need to look at cost efficiency as well as time allotment to really see if it is worth it when we could be looking at solar and wind energy that is least costly, less byproduct, and less time to manufacture and operate.

I agree that we need to use more nuclear energy. If we can consume this energy in a safer way than we can provide much more energy with little environmental destruction. Still there is always accidents occurring. Also to keep this nuclear energy cool we use water from the ocean to keep it cool which can hurt wild life.

I agree with the idea that we need to do more to invest in nuclear energy. I believe that the us federal government should look at research and investment into liquid floruim throide reactors nuclear reactors. These reactors use florioruim instead of uranium and are safe reliable and cheap. This would get rid of most of the nuclear waste; however, it will be expensive to replace our current nuclear facilities. Currently countries like Denmark, India, China, and Australia have all used Thorium reactors with varying levels of success. The United States does not  have one implemented but has done some research into the accessibility of these reactors.
I agree with the idea that we need to do more to invest in nuclear energy. I believe that the us federal government should look at research and investment into liquid floruim throide reactors nuclear reactors. These reactors use florioruim instead of uranium and are safe reliable and cheap. This would get rid of most of the nuclear waste; however, it will be expensive to replace our current nuclear facilities. Currently countr ies like Denmark, India, China, and Australia have all used Thorium reactors with varying levels of success. The United States does not  have one implemented but has done some research into the accessibility of these reactors.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampen … 8adc0146c2