Well, this happens to be part of the debate topic for the year so I am pretty well researched on this question. I definitely think that nuclear power is a safe alternative. As it stands today it is the best alternative. Although in the coming years hopefully their will be alternatives such as concentrated solar power or wind power. These alternatives would be a lot less harmful and their wouldn't be the the issue of waste. The risk of a terrorist attack is low and the risks of a meltdown are overstated. All of the qualified people on this question conclude that it is safe. Harold Bengelsdorf former director of energy wrote, "a policy that significantly strengthens U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plankts, but will also enhance the ability to advance its non proliferation agenda."There are benefits to nuclear power that go beyong juse Global Warming. US leadership on nuclear power allows us to worry about the NPT and CTBT. We can form global coalitions to solve the current crisis that we are in. John Ritch elaborates on how global warming is a problem for humans " Carbon fuel emissions -- 900 tons each second -- continue unabated, even as science warns that we are fast reaching a point of irreversible global warming with consequences for sea levels, species extinction, epidemic disease, drought and severe weather events that will disrupt all civilization" He continues that " Humankind cannot conceivably achieve a global clean-energy revolution without a rapid expansion of nuclear power to generate electricitY" Also in regards to the risks associated with nuclear power, " In the two decades since Chernobyl, the global nuclear industry has built an impressive safety record that draws on 12,000 reactor-years of practical experience". Ritch is a general of the World Nuclear Association and former U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The list goes on in terms of research. As far as Chernobyl and Three mile island they were horrendous accidents but just exactly that accidents They were using the old soviet reactors. And the sarifice of a few thousand lives to provide electricity for millions. The benefits massively outweigh the risk. As for storage, there really is no long term solution. For now Yucca seems like a fine alternative. It wouldn’t provide storage for that many years but if we believe the Mayans we will all be gone in 2012 anyway so we may as well secure our prosperity in the short term.
I normally am quite liberal and usually like deontology but in this case nuclear power necessitates a conservative and utilitarian framework.
