Let me start by saying the Nuclear Energy Power Plants have been mostly made in the nineteen hundreds. If Power Plants were made here in 2010, then they would be much more safe.
Now, moving on...
Nuclear Energy causes no pollution, which reduced global warming by a ton. Therefore, it provides a clean atmosphere. However, if a Nuclear Power Plant meltdowns, all the radiated particles will float in the air and they will contaminate the soil, water supply and air for millions of years .
But... It provides energy made in the USA and one human in a lifetime only makes about 1 coke can of nuclear waste. So every year, they only have to take the nuclear waste and go bury it in a desert or something.
You might think "So what if the energy is made in the USA?"? Well think of it like this. If we get into a conflict with a country which gives us coal, oil and fossil fuel, we get a large amount of energy cut off and we depend on other countries to provide us the energy. Besides, fossil fuel is predicted to run out in the next 3-4 centuries, so I don't think that will get us so far.
Now, the question...
Is nuclear energy worth the risks?
I needn't remind you of Chernobyl.
I voted #3.

Nuclear as well as solar panels, wind turbines all sound like good energy ideas. However nuclear energy can be very dangerous if mishandled like you said so we always need a keen eye on it.

Keep a variety, like lings and hydras. voted for #3

Hopefully we can soon get rid of this. There are many problems, the biggest being a meltdown, and another big problem is waste. The nuclear rods they use only last for so long, but remain radioactive for around another 80 years, so most get shipped away and buried. If something goes wrong when shipping it, it could cause many problems if the transport crashes, etc.

There aren't any problems.

Meltdowns don't happen, especially in a modern cores where proper fail-safes can be put in place.
The "rods" are just tubes full of little solid pellets. They are stored in very well-protected casings that are put on trucks and rail cars. If something goes wrong when shipping it, you just pick up the casing and continue. It isn't an emergency, it isn't urgent, it isn't a big deal.

Yes, but can we risk another incident like Chernobyl?

EDIT: By the way, once a year, we will only have about a shoebox of nuclear waste that we go and bury in a desert, so waste isnt such a big deal. (I think I said that already, too lazy to go back and check).

Nuclear reactors *are* quite inefficient though; only 4% of the actual nuclear fuel is used in non-breeder reactors, and it's not economically feasible to re-enrich the waste. Although there is more uranium on Earth than tin, it won't last forever. Sustained uranium mining is more of an issue (in the very long-term view) than radioactive contamination.


Fix'd.

EDIT> Chernobyl was devastating, but by no means a common occurrence.

Which happened once.
Also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident
"... as long as we pay attention to safety issues." should be a given, no matter what is done.

Also, here's one of the containers:

3-4 decades? No. I admit, 4 centuries is kind of a stretch, but we should have enough fossil fuel for the next century, guaranteed.

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

It's best noted that predictions arent always accurate and that wikipedia can be edited by any passing user.

Well I bet in 3-4 decades we will not be using nuclear reactors, because we will be no longer using fossil fuels and if that's the case then there will be no need for Nuclear Reactors, since they produce so little of our total energy.


Ha, a shoebox? Show me your sources.

And no, wiki is almost impossible to update. My friend tried deleting text, moving pictures, adding, etc. It goes back instantly.

Yeah, and somehow passing users can also edit the sources from which Wikipedia cites its articles through magic.

I was making a point. Listen to it or ignore it. I don't really care.

EDIT>

OH GOD THE IGNORANCE
-Nuclear reactors produce 20% of the US's energy, with production ratio of up to 76% for European countries.
-Nuclear fuel is not fossil fuel.
-E = mc^2

QFT


I think you are one of those people that hear the word "nuclear" and think of nuclear bombs. Its good for society (sometimes) and is possibly our energy future.

I voted #1
I extremely disagree with #2 because you have to mine out uranium. But is still better than fossil fuels.
How is #1 and #4 different from each other?

In the longterm the humans should use regenerative energy.
But currently the energy need on earth will raise (hi china). -> We need more energy.

-> regenerative energy isn't that effective atm to fully provide energy for the earth.
-> We have to continue to use nuclear power.

Btw, coal power plants are worse than a nuclear power plants in my opinion.

1 implies immediate abolition of nuclear power whereas 4 advocates a slow transition from nuclear power to alternative sources.

EDIT> Ahli, play this:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/larsiusprime/super-energy-apocalypse-recycled

XD

Okay, first of all, peak oil is an accepted fact. And unless Iraq increases production significantly, it probably already passed. Gas and coal will eventually too, if they didn't. There's shale oil which some claim is so abundant that it could stop peak oil, but that might not be easy enough to extract en masse to be economically viable for a long time. Either way, we should go for nuclear energy. All the major companies making nuclear reactors, be they Russian, French, American or other (admittedly, I'm not sure about Asian ones), have drastically improved their security mechanisms since the Chernobyl incident. The chance of something like this happening again is very, very small, and almost definitely worth the non-fossil-fuel-derived electricity.

My sources for most of this are news articles, primarily from the BBC. I really don't want to say more, because some people here are so unabashedly clueless about the issue that it makes my head hurt. Then you'll start arguing mindlessly and... *shudder*.

Chernobyl was the most retarded accident in the history of retarded accidents. It won't happen again.

Nuclear power is the safest of all power sources except wind and solar power, which are inefficient.

Aristocrat, that's a neat little game. Almost didn't play because the beginning was so slow, plus the graphics looked cheap. I lol'd at the cheat code, too.

And of course, power of choice = nuclear. Just had to defend it well (safety )