I think Nuke Power is the only thing that will keep up with the populations of Earth , Although apparently the Japan incident has taken a few lives

I'm all for it but considering the situation in Japan, it's probably best to be careful where they're built... like not in earthquake zones or along the coast or next to a volcano.

If we built reactors with sodium coolant instead of water, not even a coolant shutdown would cause a meltdown. So I'm all for them. To agree with the person above me, though, it's probably smart to be selective in placement. Nowhere near natural-disasters in waiting.

Al tough Nuclear power are dangerous, it is very useful, this can bring up a large amount of Energy, even a small Nuclear Reactor could power up approximately 7000 houses! It is a large amount of power, this is a proof that Nuclear power is Useful

I'm all for it as long as there is a lot of research involved on the placement of the reactor(s). That seems the direction that we need to go in to keep up with the rest of the world...but I doubt Obama will take us in that direction.

Little Pollution

As demand for electricity soars, the pollution produced from fossil fuel-burning plants is heading towards dangerous levels. Coal, gas and oil burning power plants are already responsible for half of America's air pollution. Burning coal produces carbon dioxide, which depletes the protection of the ozone. The soft coal, which many power plants burn, contains sulfur When the gaseous byproducts are absorbed in clouds, precipitation becomes sulfuric acid.. Coal also contains radioactive material. A coal-fired power plant emits more radiation into the air than a nuclear power plant.

The world's reserves of fossil fuels are running out. The sulfurous coal which many plants use is more polluting than the coal that was previously used. Most of the anthracite, which plants also burn, has been used up. As more soft coal is used, the amount of pollution will increase. According to estimates, fossil fuels will be burned up within fifty years. There are large reserves of uranium, and new breeder reactors can produce more fuel than they use. Unfortunately this doesn't mean we can have an endless supply of fuel Breeder reactors need a feedstock of uranium and thorium, so when we run out of these two fuels (in about 1000 years), breeder reactors will cease to be useful. This is still a more lengthy solution to the current burning of coal, gas, and oil.

Safety

Safety is both a pro and con, depending on which way you see it. The results of a compromised reactor core can be disastrous, but the precautions that prevent this from happening prevent it well. Nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from American nuclear power plants. There are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. A series of barriers separates the radiation and heat of the reactor core from

the outside. The reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is surrounded by a thick concrete wall. This is inside a sealed steel containment structure, which itself is inside a steel-reinforced concrete dome four feet thick. The dome is designed to withstand extremes such as earthquakes or a direct hit by a crashing airliner. There is also a large number of sensors that pick up increases in radiation or humidity. An increase in radiation or humidity could mean there is a leak. There are systems that control and stop the chain reaction if necessary. An Emergency Core Cooling System ensures that in the event of an accident there is enough cooling water to cool the reactor.

Nuclear can be quite safe with the proper designs and response teams.

I wouldn't call it clean, proper waste disposal takes forever; especially if a country doesn't allow refinement.

Its not renewable.

Its not cheap.

I would prefer other sources of energy, but nuclear power is quite effective and can be useful for getting us off oil and coal.

As a temporary and transitive source of energy between fossil fuels and renewable sources, I support it.

Nuclear power has had some difficulties in the past. However the number of people actually affected by the japanese plant was minimal. The only major nuclear disaster was in Chernobyl and that was run by communists who were not health and safety disciples. The advantages of nuclear power far outweigh the disadvantages. it is not renewable but resources are not running out. The amount of energy it produces is enormous and there is no contribution to the environment (except from the building process). France has had no problems and they have nuclear power stations everywhere. Global warming has far more disastrous consequences than small problems every now and then with nuclear power plants (which will decrease because of new technology and and obsession with health and safety) and Nuclear power represents the best opportunity to reduce our carbon footprint.

Nuclear power has had some difficulties in the past. However the number of people actually affected by the japanese plant was minimal. The only major nuclear disaster was in Chernobyl and that was run by communists who were not health and safety disciples. The advantages of nuclear power far outweigh the disadvantages. it is not renewable but resources are not running out. The amount of energy it produces is enormous and there is no contribution to the environment (except from the building process). France has had no problems and they have nuclear power stations everywhere. Global warming has far more disastrous consequences than small problems every now and then with nuclear power plants (which will decrease because of new technology and and obsession with health and safety) and Nuclear power represents the best opportunity to reduce our carbon footprint.

Population is increasing rapidly leading to the increase of electricity demands by the people. Renewable energy and energy efficiency alone won't solve the energy crisis.So , the ultimate and one and only solution will be the Nuclear power. It is virtually unlimited and is a steady source of energy. It is highly reliable. It is pollution free. It gives high loads of potential . While there are myths where they say that it is not safe , that's not true scientifically , may it be the Transport or waste disposal or exposure it is taken care of . There are specially designed containers for transport and waste is not disposed of like garbage. Low levels of radiation comparable to those received naturally are not harmful . There is no evidence of any harm below about 100 mS/yr.

So I strongly believe that the nuclear power will strengthen global security and will give rise to new hope to great revolution of Nuclear Era :)

Reliability

Nuclear power plants need little fuel, so they are less vulnerable to shortages because of strikes or natural disasters. International relations will have little effect on the supply of fuel to the reactors because uranium is evenly deposited around the globe. One disadvantage of uranium mining is that it leaves the residues from chemical processing of the ore, which leads to radon exposure to the public. These effects do not outweigh the benefits by the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. Coal burning leaves ashes that will increase future radon exposures. The estimates of radon show that it is safer to use nuclear fuel than burn coal. Mining of the fuel required to operate a nuclear plant for one year will avert a few hundred deaths, while the ashes from a coal-burning plant will cause 30 deaths.