I think more research should be done into transmutation to deal with the waste. This would seriously cut down on this problem.
I keep hearing claims of this. To which my reaction is then do the research. Don't have us generate more radioactive waste on the assumption that we'll figure out a way how to deal with it later.
This is a tiny possibility and most people who talk about it are scaremongering. There have been a number of meltdowns over the years and only one has had any serious long term effects.
If we dramatically increased the number of reactors, which we would have to do, then the number of meltdowns will dramatically increase as well.
Only because uninformed people think blowing up a nuclear power plate can cause a nuclear explosion.
Whether or not the attackers are uninformed is not the issue.
Tritium is produced at a yield of 0.01%. As long as it is safely monitored and exposure is kept below 10,000 Bq/L it is safe for human consumption. In most countrys however the legal limit is far lower in the range of 100-1000 Bq/L far below the WHO limit.
Did you miss the part where I said that in the U.S. the nuclear plants are self-monitoring? They measure their own levels of tritium, and they decide when they are going to do it.
In the UK the government limit for people who work with radiation is 20mSv a year, for people who do not work with radiation it is significantly lower. Company's limits are normally far below the legal requirement.
Illinois Sues Exelon for Radioactive Tritium Releases Since 1996
Uranium supply's are gauged at 80 years on our current consumption.
Again, if we were to actually use nuclear for a significant portion of our energy needs, our consumption would be far greater than what is current. As for your estimates of "undiscovered ore," etc, they're just more promises.
Yup we would but how is this an argument against nuclear power?
Money.
Nuclear power is cheaper than renewable sources. I agree it would take a long time to make enough reactors. Currently it takes about 15 years to build one.
We don't have 15 years to wait.
Yeah, I repeat, why would we invest all that time and money in an energy source that is not sustainable?
On this logic no form of energy is carbon neutral. Think of the mining that has to be done for metals and all the carbon that will produce.
Really? I wasn't aware that we had to
continually mine and enrich for sunshine or water or wind. Yes, we mine for metals, which is environmentally destructive for a host of reasons in addition to carbon gases. So why do even more mining for uranium?