First off nuclear power consists of about twenty percent of the worlds power supply, with(as of 1993) four hundred plants worldwide with one hundred and nine of them being in the United States. Also with the amount of uranium left in it’s natural form in the world it is estimated that nuclear power will be possible for hundreds of years, and with “breeder reactors” that number could be easily put into the millions.

With only one accident to the public being reported (Chernobyl),the risk to the public is minimal. Also the accident at Chernobyl would not of happened if the reactor was built to US standards instead of the former Soviet Union’s. Yet another point in the argument for that would be not to turn the power plant up to 150 percent, usually that does tend break

Even with the extra precautions, and the long process of relatively safely storing the nuclear waste; I do believe that the limitless amount of power and high safety rating of these power plants makes them a very feasible option for powering the world in the future. Besides, this taxpayer doesn’t really want to have to change all the naval ships back over to fuel oil since they have all their own reactors (which since the 1950s haven’t caused a problem).

Still yet another point in the argument is what to do with all the radioactive waste once it has been reprocessed so many times that it cannot be used. Well as far as the United States goes, the principal place to store the waste is inside the nuclear test range in Nevada. Now Nevada isn’t taking to kindly to this plan, and has tried to stop the government from depositing the waste there, but as of recently Bush has signed a bill that would override Nevada’s power to limit the amount of waste to be st

Some topics in this essay:
Russia UK, , Nevada Nevada, Soviet Union’s, United Clinton, U-238 U-235, nuclear power, normal reactor, “breeder reactors”, nuclear waste, test range, amount waste,