Should The Advancement of Nuclear Technology be Encouraged?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35186405]I thought the point of Nuclear power you were arguing was to reduce the environmental impacts of energy creation?[/QUOTE]

Yes, and when you take all the emissions coming out of cars and factories away the environmental impact of the things you mentioned are completely inconsequential. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Lonestriper]

How are mining and building/knocking down plants completely inconsequential? they obviously would have an impact on the environment. Also, why on earth would you take the emissions from cars and factories away when electric cars and machinery would be ineffective in a mining situation.

Basically my point is why should we use nuclear power when it's environmental impacts would nullify it too a stepping stone towards clean energy, especially when growth would demand more plants being built

[kebab52]

How do you all feel about the proliferation of nuclear weapons that usually comes along with advancements in nuclear power?

The deterrent aspect etc.

[Splendor]

[QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's not that abundant in lunar regolith.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=kebab52;35190464]How do you all feel about the proliferation of nuclear weapons that usually comes along with advancements in nuclear power?

The deterrent aspect etc.[/QUOTE]

Military technology marches in steady pace with civilian technology. There are risks, but they do not ultimately ruin the world as some would believe.

The steam engine brought steam powered factories, and steamships mounted with heavy guns to inflict more damage than before. There was an arms race in the early 20th century with battleships, like in the mid 20th with nuclear weapons. In both cases, those massive weapons were used mainly to show the military power of a nation rather than for actual use. Many dreadnoughts built for WW1 never fought in the battles, and many nuclear weapons built for WW3 sat collecting dust and decaying for decades.

[Splendor]

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35157371]Oh and the fact that uranium is another limited resource[/QUOTE]

That's really quite misleading. Uranium is more common than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver for example. 40 times more common than silver to be precise.

[Block]

[url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html[/url]
Some nice statistics. Makes it quite clear why encouraging nuclear power makes sense.

[Arachnidus]

[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;35144238]Nuclear energy looks like it could do great things, only problem I have is the potential of a devastating accident like Chernobyl. Imagine that in a smaller area, like Long Island. The entire fucking island would be almost inhabitable (or at least more than half of it.)[/QUOTE]

A coal plant explosion wouldn't exactly be clean, either. Nuclear power has its risks, but it's much, [B]much[/B] safer than people think it to be.