Nuclear energy

[mmm]

Vote on the topic before reading further, I want to gather as natural an opinion as possible.
I've heard a lot of talk about how Japan should have never used nuclear energy because it leads to situations like the one at the Fukishima reactor. It really irks me, because Japan has no choice but to use nuclear energy due to a lack of conventional energy sources (such as coal or oil), and the relative inefficiency of more "green" alternative energy (such as wind or solar power). Nuclear energy is more efficient than the other green energies, and does not contribute to global climate change as much, or at least in the same way, as conventional power sources.
Then there are those who annoy me just as much, who say that Japan should have been prepared for a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that triggered a 70 foot tsunami, followed by numerous aftershocks measuring above 5 on the Richter scale. Implementing structural support that could withstand all of that would cost an unimaginable amount of money. And this is just for one reactor. What about all the other ones?
In conclusion, I think that nuclear energy is generally safe, and a good alternative to conventional power, and I hope that you will offer your opinions as well.

[Dr Frook]

I think it is completely retarded placing a nuclear reactor in a major earthquake zone.

they should invest money in alternative ways of producing power.

the end.

[Amy]

I think it is completely retarded placing a nuclear reactor in a major earthquake zone.

they should invest money in alternative ways of producing power.

the end.

I think you've just summed up what I've been trying to explain to all my friends for the past month in one sentence.

[Zados]

its not "generally safe" cause there is always something that could happen in every part of life

[Hitokiri]

I know a few people that have worked in a nuclear power plant.
From what I've heard there are lots of safety precautions, procedures and everything in place to keep things as safe as possible.

Unfortunately things like these are hardly foreseen, that's why they're disasters.

The trouble with nuclear power is that when it goes wrong, it goes wrong big with very high consequences. Luckily things don't go wrong alot.

Now we can all get rid of nuclear power tomorrow, consequently we're being put back at least 100 years in time.
forget computers, machines, cell phones etc.
Because without nuclear power there just isn't enough power to go around.
Oh and if you put the light on, be prepared to pay a fortune, as every other power source will be much more expensive and/or polluting than nuclear.

Now, we should increase alternative sources of energy, green.
as well as research into new forms, such as nuclear fusion...but that's future...

until then there is hardly any other choice but to use nuclear power.

[mmm]

I think it is completely retarded placing a nuclear reactor in a major earthquake zone.

they should invest money in alternative ways of producing power.

the end.

In terms of safety, the only reasons nuclear energy is viewed so negatively are the information spread during the Cold War about the nuclear bomb, and Chernobyl. Yes, whenever a nuclear disaster happens, it is devastating. But how often do they happen? Should America investigate an alternative to airplanes because of the terrorist attack in 9/11?
They didn't place the plant in a major earthquake zone, and I'm sure if they had a safer place to put it, the government would have built it there. Again, this costs money. Okay then, let's do without nuclear energy. This wouldn't go over very well, as nuclear power provides a third of Japan's total energy.http://augustafreepress.com/2011/04/06/earth-talk-can-japan-do-without-nuclear-energy/
I agree that we should invest in alternative sources of energy, but the transition has to be gradual. In the meantime, nuclear energy continues to be the best source of alternative energy for Japan and environmentally similar countries.