Is Nuclear Energy considered clean energy, if so, is this a viable alternative to Oil?

14 Responses to Is Nuclear Energy considered clean energy, if so, is this a viable alternative to Oil?

1. jeeper_peeper321 says:

   June 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm

   No, neither is the so called green energy.

   Your mixing industries.

   We really do not use oil to produce energy, we use coal to produce energy.

   the oil industry is not going away, ever, there will always be a need for the oil industry.

   people seem to only think of gasoline when mentioning the oil industry.

   But there would be no lubricants or plastic without the oil industry.

   And we cannot function without either of those.

   2. There are issues with any type of energy.

   just look at elec cars — they have batteries that still have thermal issues ( ie: they can over heat and catch on fire )

   there are no authorized disposal sites for elec car batteries in the US, they must all be shipped to canada.

   Elec car batteries only last approx 5 to 6 years, replacement cost can exceed $10,000

   Solar power — produces heat, that needs water to be used as a coolant, except the places in the US, most favorable for solar power grids, have the least amount of water

   Wind power – just doesn’t produce enough energy to matter.
2. Cris Ray says:

   June 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm

   Yes France leads the world in it getting almost 90% of there energy from nuclear.
3. Will says:

   June 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm

   It does have it’s down sides. As pointed out. The disposal of the waste and possibility of something going wrong(meltdown). And if government safety standards aren’t increased but decreased. The chances of something going wrong increases. The Gulf oil spill is a classic example. I agree with the re-use of the rods. But that technology isn’t there yet. Same with battery(storage) technology. And also the disposal of said battery’s once they become spent. This is also the problem with electric cars. Not to mention the cost of a replacement battery for the individual once that battery in their car becomes no good.
4. Sir Studley Smugly says:

   June 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm

   It’s probably the filthiest of all – they don’t know what to do with all the spent fuel – it stays dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, and they have no idea where to store it.
5. slykitty62 says:

   June 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm

   For electricity maybe. But not for cars. I don’t really want to drive around in something that is powered by nuclear energy. What if I should crash and spew plutonium all over the place?
6. John D "Your ad here" says:

   June 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm

   “yes,but democrats and tree huggers don’t want it”.

   Fairly wrong on both counts. It’s not all that clean, but I’m in favor of itbecause it emits no gases and we need to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

   “Nuclear energy is clean energy”. You have greatly oversimplified and misrepresented the problems associated with nuclear waste.
7. There's An App For That says:

   June 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm

   Nuclear energy is clean energy. And contrary to what others are saying, we do not need to bury spent fuel rods, they can be reused. Other countries have been doing it for years.

   There is no such thing really as “clean energy.” Electric car batteries need some exotic metal abundant only in China. Solar collectors generate lots of toxic chemicals in their manufacture.

   Edit: Spent fuel rods can be reused. We don’t and shouldn’t bury them in expensive pits. The fact that they are still radioactive means they are still *active.*

   We are still going to need oil, however. Just about everything we have comes from petrochemicals. Plastics, tires, oils, lubes, grease, even housings for green energy products.
8. Scott H says:

   June 20, 2012 at 11:51 am

   Yes and yes. . the waste is tiny compared to most other energy sources. And the output is HUGE. … wind and water will NEVER be able to compete with nuclear in the long run. The enviro-wackos are living in the past when they protest nuclear power. The truth is, nuclear power would provide the EXACT panacea that the green movement pretends it wants.
9. Astro Smurf says:

   June 20, 2012 at 11:08 am

   It is clean only in terms of no airborne emissions. However, mining uranium has many negative consequences as does the lack of nuclear waste storage for spent fuel
10. Nuts for Liberty says:

    June 20, 2012 at 10:13 am

    It’s safe when the safety protocols are followed.

    If a meltdown does happen the result is catastrophic though, I also believe we need to come up with a safer way to store away radioactive materials.

    Radioactive materials take thousands of years to even reach their half life, and the containers they are stored in are only built to last a few hundred years or so… I know they bury them deep in mountains with concrete walls no telling how thick – but in thousands of years eventually that gunk will ooze out.
11. GARF says:

    June 20, 2012 at 10:06 am

    It is clean, problem with waste storage which one thinks we could solve. I mean, waste does not seem to concern that great socialist nation France, so why does it concern our socialists? Another socialist mystery.
12. PIXIE says:

    June 20, 2012 at 9:25 am

    yes,but democrats and tree huggers don’t want it.
13. John Doe says:

    June 20, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Obama shut off funding for nuclear waste disposal.

    Pay attention to what he does not what he says.
14. TEH TYME KITTEH pantheist says:

    June 20, 2012 at 8:23 am

    No, its not, due to the waste. Clean energy is wind and solar, geo thermal etc…. No waste