Should countries phase out nuclear power plants and look at other sources for their energy needs?

Can't believe there are people uneducated enough to vote Yes.

Can't believe there are people uneducated enough to vote No.

I'm all for it, so long as all the costs of inevitable nuclear accidents are factored into the cost of the power generated. If it can pay to ruin the lives of millions of people each time it overheats, and not rely on welfare handouts to exist, like it does in every country, then great.

Those nuclear power stations should be paying for every evacuated resident, and every affected farmer, fisherman, and parent the costs of relocating and setting up new lives somewhere else, not the taxpayer.

End the socialist madness that countries allow nuclear power to get away with - make it pay its own way, and compete fairly with other power sources, and fine.

Japan did without any nuclear power just fine for several months in 2002. It has already proven that it can switch away from it, if it feels the urge to. The top priority must be upgrading the grid, to create a national grid that allows better implementation of more meaningful alternatives.

Peace

I didn't vote. For the other current energy options could be even worse than the nuclear: coal, for instance, is 100% polluting.

That is a two part question. How do you expect people to answer if they have different answers to each part?

In the even, no, of course we should not phase out nuclear energy now. And for the second part, yes, of course we should research other options.

If any government were to have financed the research into other (cleaner) sources of energy (coal is only one of the alternatives) 50 years ago, we'd be butt deep in cleaner energy sources by now.

The cost of nuclear is not just the cost of building and running the plant but includes the cost of clean up if an accident occurs, plus the cost of storing the leftover radioactive rods for up to 10,000 years. If those costs are included, alternative (and hopefully cleaner) sources seem cheap by comparison.

However, I agree with WilliB, this two part question needs at least four choices for a complete answer.

Two questions here, so voting "yes" or "no" is somewhat useless.

Yes, of course, we should look for other sources of energy. Haven't we been doing that for decades?

If a cheaper, cleaner, safer energy source is found, it would be logical to phase out nuclear power plants.

Nuclear is the way to go. The public wants energy sources to be clean, reliable, cheap and powerful. Nothing exists that satisfies all these conditions.

End the socialist madness that countries allow nuclear power to get away with - make it pay its own way, and compete fairly with other power sources, and fine.

Hikozaemon - I am afraid I do not agree. Government planning of power supplies has nothing to do with "socialism" any more than have a police service does.

The advantage (and disadvantage) of fossil fuels is that they already exist - they simply need to be extracted, but not made. Power is far harder to extract from a renewable source or nuclear, but that does not invalidate its use, for reasons of carbon emissions and that one day the fossil fuels will run out.

I agree with what @hikozaemon said.

I agree with other posters. No on nuclear phase out. Yes on finding new means of energy production.

I'm all for it, so long as all the costs of inevitable nuclear accidents are factored into the cost of the power generated. If it can pay to ruin the lives of millions of people each time it overheats, and not rely on welfare handouts to exist, like it does in every country, then great.

To date thee have been 3 serious nuclear disasters. Three Mile Island barely counts at that. Only one true meltdown. That’s out of hundreds of nuclear power plants and even more nuclear reactors used on naval vessels.

End the socialist madness that countries allow nuclear power to get away with - make it pay its own way, and compete fairly with other power sources, and fine.

If you applied that same rule to windmills or solar panels would be virtually nonexistent. Maybe it would be better that way. Might encourage more research, I’d love to see a functional fusion reactor in my lifetime.

Hikozaemon - I'm all for it, so long as all the costs of inevitable nuclear accidents are factored into the cost of the power generated.

And, until it effects your family directly, of course. - Sorry, but I am 100% against nuclear power and always have been. The risks are too great, which has been proven too many times already. There is also the issue of nuclear waste, which also contributed to the Fukushima disaster. The damn stuff stay active for a thousand years and nobody wants it in their backyard. They estimate the compensation for the Fukushima disaster will be at least 4 trillion yen and will escalate as the true effects are felt through the following generations. That amount of money should have been spent on developing alternative power sources like, geothermal and hydro-electric, both of which are extremely viable options for Japan. They are fully renewable, environmentally friendly and not dangerous to the health of millions of people when the "What if?" scenario kicks in on a nuclear power plant.

We have not been privy to the tech that is out there to save ourselves.Over the years inventions have been presented and squashed by vested interests are legion.

eg Tesla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_patents

also the death of scientists of high calibre in strange circumstances are to be found on any search engine

There is a native American proverb that fits the situation here:

"Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."

Nuclear power is a cheap and - if we are careful - safe way to produce energy.

But the problem is the future. Used nuclear fuel is VERY nasty stuff to have around and it doesn't go away quickly either. We enjoy cheap energy now, but our children and our children's children are the ones who are going to suffer.

Or, if you believe in reincarnation, they will be us, coming round again, in other bodies.

However you look at it or whatever you believe, with nuclear power, we are making problems for the people who come after us.