Does the United States Need More Nuclear Power?

By U.S. News Staff

July 16, 2010 RSS Feed Print

The U.S. Senate is working on new comprehensive energy legislation. One element of such a plan would be a renewed push for more nuclear power, which advocates say is an underused clean energy source. Critics worry it could lead to environmental disaster.
Edited by Robert Schlesinger

Yes

Lamar Alexander
GOP senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference

Forty years ago, at the time of the first Earth Day, Americans became deeply worried about air and water pollution and a population explosion that threatened to overrun the planet's resources. Nuclear power was seen as a savior to these environmental dilemmas. It could produce large amounts of low-cost, reliable clean energy.

READ MORE

No

Dennis Kucinich
Democratic House member from Ohio and chair of the Oversight Committee's Domestic Policy Subcommittee

If nuclear energy is a bad investment for Wall Street, then is it a good investment for taxpayers? Even high-fliers on Wall Street are afraid to invest in nuclear projects. Moody's has called the projects "bet the farm" investments. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2003 that the risk of default was "well above 50...

READ MORE

What do you think?down arrow

Is More Nuclear Power a Good Idea?

View Results
Tags:
Lamar Alexander,
nuclear power,
energy,
Dennis Kucinich,
energy policy and climate change

Reader Comments Read all comments (16)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The problem with the current reactors is their reliance on Uranium. Thorium reactors are in tested and in existence, do not produce the same quantities of dangerous weapons materials and can be used widely for peaceful activities.

Thorium is also much more naturally abundant than Uranium. See Reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust)

It is also available in very friendly countries (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html).

Nuclear fuel is not bad, but it needs to have better options. The side-affects of nuclear power are problematic. Much needs to be done to reduce the risk of weapons proliferation and to address the hazards of nuclear power in general. If these can be addressed reasonably through alternative sources of nuclear power so much the better.

Plebus of VA 9:46PM March 22, 2011

Has been used (since 57 year) for develop Deuterium fusion reactors, we would have now much cheaper electricity, with much less risks, and with Lithium production for electrical cars!

But the governments wanted Plutonium for nuclear bombs, not lithim, and so the Uranium fisson technology was developed, very dangerous.

Even the cheaper Thorium fission technology, creating much less garbage, has only be developed in India, and it takes 20 years until such a technology becomes commercial...

Sorry: CERN+FERMILAB have wasted for humanity 57 years and a trillion $!

Jean-Francois Morf, Charrat, Switzerland 5:39PM March 22, 2011

1) because they are brittle after 40 years of intense neutron radiations

2) because they have not 2 separate circuits of steam (radioactive/non radioactive)

3) so many parts are obsolete and kaput after 40 years

4) even the conception is obsolete after 40 years

5) the engineers that thought the reactor are mostly dead

6) So many modifications has been made in 40 years that no scheme is complete

7) the geeks that control the reactor don't know why it work after 40 years

8) the private company will make profit, but it's difficult with so little power

9) so the private company cheat with the security verifications

10) would you continue to use an IBM 1970 unix computer with Snow Leopard 2011?

Jean-Francois Morf, Charrat, Switzerland 5:22PM March 22, 2011

Cartoons

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Americans Deserve Political Freedom from the Catholic Church

Church leaders could not have been less gracious towards Obama's surrender on contraception.

What the Catholic Contraceptive Debate Is Really About

Today's debates about contraception and inequality are intertwined in that the bring up the question of morality.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

On Women in Combat, Rick Santorum Insults Military Men

To suggest that the men in our armed forces cannot control their emotions is a real slap at the professionals who wear the uniform.

To Avoid a Failed February, Mitt Romney Needs a Big Idea

Mitt Romney needs a big idea to rouse enthusiasm for his campaign.

How Mitt Romney Should Respond to the Improving Economy

Even if the economy continues to improve, Mitt Romney still can present a better plan than Barack Obama's.

The Problems With the Catholic Church and Birth Control

The Catholic Church's stance on birth control is a slippery slope, as an Obama administration ruling highlights.

advertisement

  1. The 50 Best Careers of 2011
  2. Cary: Obama's 'Compromise' Doesn't Change a Thing
  3. The 10 Best Places to Retire in 2012
  4. 50 Ways to Improve Your Finances in 2012
  5. Walsh: Ron Paul Disappointed in Maine Results