Why Not Nuclear?

The media is filled with calls for more environmentally friendly businesses, fuels, cars, etc.-- yet no one is promoting the single most environmentally friendly power source of all: nuclear reactors.

Why Use Nuclear Energy to Produce Hydrogen?

Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology, particularly for the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in transportation would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, enhancing our national security. Significant progress in hydrogen combustion engines and fuels cells is bringing hydrogen-powered transportation closer to reality.

The primary challenge to the increased use of hydrogen as part of the Nation’s overall energy infrastructure is the cost associated with its production, storage and delivery. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and can be produced from readily available sources such as methane and water. However, existing hydrogen production methods are either inefficient or produce greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy has the potential to efficiently produce large quantities of hydrogen without producing greenhouse gases and hence, to play a significant role in hydrogen production.

Nuclear Power as GREEN

Nuclear power stations are ZERO EMISSION technology. No matter how clean one makes a fuel-burning power plant, there are still emissions of some type.

Other Options?

"But hydroelectric, solar and wind power are better!"

Perhaps, once photovoltaic solar panels are manufactured with better technology which will bring the price down and the efficiency up, they will be a genuine option. As for wind turbines, they only work in specific areas and are rather expensive to maintain currently. As with any technology of any kind, tomorrow may bring new options to feasibility.

I'd never advocate against any method of power generation that makes sense-- both from a profitability and "sustainability" viewpoint.

Nuclear Waste

All US nuclear reactors have been built with the idea that their storage ponds for spent nuclear fuel and contaminated materials would only be a temporary holding facility until a proper, permanent facility could be opened to accept all the waste. The part that boggles my mind is that the Yucca Mountain is still not open. Apparently, some environmentalists are worried about how much radiation will be able to escape from the storage facility 10,000 years from now... Come on! By that time, we'll have vastly better technology and will likely be able to completely neutralize the radioactivity.