Entry 3

After going over most of the blogs, I still believe nuclear energy has the potential to do good. Aside from little pollution, safety, proper disposal of nuclear waste, and the economic advantage, the international supply also sides for nuclear energy. Oil and coal reserves are situated in certain locations around the world. Some countries lack these sources (Japan) while others have an excess (Saudi Arabia). This may result in trade interference and changeable costs. However, uranium and plutonium (nuclear fuel) is proven to be "equally dispersed"(1) all around the world which makes nuclear fuel reliable.
In addition, nuclear disaster and harms are very rare. For example, about 30000 people (2) die each year from breathing problems, three hundred from ore mining, and an incredible zero from nuclear energy. With advances in this branch of science, a nuclear meltdown would be very scarce and even if it occurs it is not comparable to the extended affects of coal and natural gas. Radiation from nuclear plants would also not increase significantly at all. On average we receive 200 millionth rems (3) of radiation which would become 200.2 millionth rems if all our energy came from nuclear plants. Nuclear energy may have a few downsides, however In my opinion nuclear power is the solution not the problem.

(1) http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1425_web.pdf
(2) http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm
(3) http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiation.html
Picture: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/11/Cold-Fusion-Rossi-1-537x392.jpg

Entry 2

     When scientists debate over nuclear energy, the radioactive waste plays an important role on both sides of the argument. Many say nuclear waste is in no way disposable. However what they might be overseeing is all the new studies on the subject. Aside from finding a safe place to dispose this radioactive mass, chemists believe by speeding up the decay of the atoms the problem will be solved. Since low level nuclear waste decays in "10-50 years", the high level nuclear waste is of most concern at 10000 years.(2) And in the case of high level nuclear waste, with a few more years of extensive study, scientist will be able to turn the uranium into rapidly decaying isotopes which "could reduce the half life to only a minuscule fraction of the original radioactivity".
     Furthermore, nuclear energy is both efficient and economic solution to energy shortages. In today's nuclear plants, the thermal efficiency (amount of work done off of heat/the amount of heat provided) is 35% which is nearly identical to that of a coal plant. But the nuclear plant creates 17MBTU(1)  of energy from just one uranium pellet. (An equivalent of 1780lbs of coal!) With uranium costs at $100/kg coal prices appear quite expensive. With the crashing economies of the world nuclear energy could be the end of budget deficits and lack of energy sources.

(1) http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~azadini/group/website/

(2) http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99315.htm
More information: http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/
Pictures: http://amarillolocalnews.com/nuclear-waste  http://blogspot.com/nuclearwaste  http://corereaction.org/images/