You know it is a little late for asking if they should be built, since there is a bunch already built. I can't remember what my teacher said, but I think it was in the upper hundreds, maybe even in the thousands for the U.S? The only problem is if they have a meltdown, but there is multiple procedures set up so that doesn't happen. They aren't always failsafe, but close to it. Other than that they help the environment a lot more than burning coal, and it is a lot more efficient as well.
There is a social stigma against nuclear technology for very silly, sensational reasons. People associate it with toxic waste, bombs, and other things that it really doesn't produce all that much of. As Sid said, nuclear energy technologies are actually helping to reduce the usage of more environmentally harmful energy sources, and the only true danger comes from a possible meltdown.
It's one of the most promising sciences in terms of finding new energy sources other than fossil fuels. For someone to say that they "shouldn't be built/maintained" due to some popular social pretext is a slap in the face to the very cause they claim to champion.
8 Name: metal mist : 2012-10-18 16:05 ID:u+Du6btb [Del]
>>10 not much more research needs to be done, nuclear power plants are just like coal and gass power plants as they all boil water to make steam to drive turbines.
