Im sure this comes from an unbiased study....

[Biggin]

Coal shoudnt be discarded, because its a huge part of our economy, but we do need to start at least trying to find a few other ways to produce power, because coal is a non-renewable resource, it will eventually run out.

[TheBeast]

The most reliable and safest and best form of energy production is nuclear. Solar and wind are so inefficient and cost prohibitive that they should never be serious considerations.

[Biggin]

how in the world can nuclear power be safer than wind or solar power??

when solar power goes wrong, the solar plates break or something

when nuclear power goes wrong, we get Three Mile Island or Chernoybl

[R13]

Nuclear fuel cost are the only thing low about it. Expensive to make, to maintain, to secure, miles of redtape to go through with waste, how secure and standards of running it etc. Nuclear is another that should be used, i'm not against it, but not as a primary source...that's ridiculous.


Again, it's a combination of many alternative sources(wind, solar, biomass, wave, hydro etc.), not just one...that includes the great nuclear.

[TheBeast]

when nuclear power goes wrong, we get Three Mile Island or Chernoybl

Chernobyl was caused by the idiots just shutting down a system to run a test without checking to see what the system run first. 3 mile was a minor problem and no adverse side effects came from it in any way. These are the only two instances of any kind at any nuclear plant in the world and are useless in an argument against using nuclear.

[NotSoSilentBob]

If alternative energy sources were viable, there would be widespread use of such sources already. Once such sources are profitable, they will see an expansion into the market of the average consumer.

[Biggin]

Chernobyl was caused by the idiots just shutting down a system to run a test without checking to see what the system run first. 3 mile was a minor problem and no adverse side effects came from it in any way. These are the only two instances of any kind at any nuclear plant in the world and are useless in an argument against using nuclear.

No, its not useless, its a very strong argument that throws yours into the water.

And you are flat out wrong. There are SEVENTEEN major nuclear power plant accidents.
Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents


Employee error can happen anywhere, when humans are involved accidents can happen, and its a very viable argument against nuclear power. No matter how you split it, people are gonna be involved in anything, therefore nuclear power is WAY WAY more dangerous than solar or wind power.

And you are totally wrong about Three Mile Island:
(Washingtonpost.com: Three Mile Island)

A 1997 study at UNC stated that the amount of radiation originally documented as wrong and that the high rates of radiation led to increased cancer rates in people surrounding the island.

"The cancer findings, along with studies of animals, plants and chromosomal damage in Three Mile Island area residents, all point to much higher radiation levels than were previously reported," said Steven Wing, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina and co-author of the study. "If you say there was no high radiation, then you are left with higher cancer rates . . . that are otherwise unexplainable."

Article by the Environmental Health Perspective, a government organization, seems to agree with the UNC study, since they published it.
wing

There is some debate, the 1990 study found that the radiation only had minimal effect, but the new study says otherwise.

At the very least, the one BILLION dollars spent to clean up the place was an adverse effect.

So, an increase in cancer rates, and a billion dollar-plus clean up, yeah there were no adverse effects from the TMI accident. :/

And Chernobyl:
56 direct deaths
800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers to be expected from all other causes in this population

Nuclear power is a great asset, but it is VERY dangerous.
So to say nuclear power is safer than solar or wind power is flat out wrong.

There is simply no way to say nuclear power is safer than the other two. No way at all. When you say things like that, its impossible for me to take you seriously.

[Biggin]

If alternative energy sources were viable, there would be widespread use of such sources already. Once such sources are profitable, they will see an expansion into the market of the average consumer.

We dont use it because we cant make enough money on it. Thats true, you are right, and its sad.

They are viable, meaning they work and generate power, but they are more expensive to use and have less profit margin, meaning the American greed filled people will not switch over because of potential loss in profits.

They are giving people money to switch to solar power, so it must not be that cost-prohibitive.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=1172

More examples of profitable solar power:
http://www.nrc.org/Nanotech2009/abs.html?i=10379

More research on solar power:
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles...lar-Power.html

[NotSoSilentBob]

We dont use it because we cant make enough money on it. Thats true, you are right, and its sad.

They are viable, meaning they work and generate power, but they are more expensive to use and have less profit margin, meaning the American greed filled people will not switch over because of potential loss in profits.

Sad? Greed?

Capitalism works. If not for 'greed', the world would be stuck in 1800.

[NotSoSilentBob]

As for nuclear power, if it's good enough for the cheese eating surrender monkeys in France, it's good enough for the US.