we get About 20 % from nuclear power,they also recycle most of the waste for reuse,for the short and medium term ,what are the options? try to be Realistic Please, thank you.
2006-07-13 08:35:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
To begin, fusion reactions are extremely powerful and unstable. Also, it takes more energy to begin one than is neccessarily feasible when a fission reaction is much more economical. France is ahead of the times as far as nuclear power is considered, and America has fallen to the wayside in energy technologies. Japan is another country that relies heavily on its nuclear energy. They also have new "breeder" reactors that run on spent Uranium... Plutonium is hardly ever used in nuclear reactors, as U-238 is easier to find and produce. And is much easier to control. Hence, why Plutonium is usually used in bombs and usually only as the "spark" to initiate the initial fission reactions.
"Recycle" is also not really the proper term when one is talking about spent nuclear fuel. "Re-enrichment" is actually the proper terminology. And this process is extremely costly both in dollars and in energy. That is why most store it safely where the harmful radiation cannot hurt anyone.
Our options are better storage facilities, better education of the public on the benefits and dangers of nuclear technology, and voting out old fogies that run the government and don't like change. :) In all honesty, the big advancements in the next ten years will be seen in Japan and France, as well as a few other countries. America needs to get over 3-mile Island, Chernobyl, and other disasters and look at Japan and France's almost spotless record over the past 20 years.
2006-07-13 10:00:03 · answer #1 · answered by AresIV 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear engineering is a great source of power. It is cheat (except for all of the government fees), it is clean, and it can produce a tremendous amount of power. There are breeder reactors that can use the waste that is produced from conventional reactors to make more energy. Unfortunately, at least here in America, they are not used because the produce plutonium, not weapons grade but it still scares some people. So if you can get the average person to not be terrified of nuclear power then we can have a tremendous amount of energy available to us.
2006-07-13 08:55:20 · answer #2 · answered by mcguiver 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear sounds like a good option. I'd be more intrested in how they are recycling the nuclear waste produced.
2006-07-13 08:46:29 · answer #3 · answered by hyperhealer3 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they don't make the air cleanser. Their ability source is coal burning ability plants. To make the air cleanser with a strong electric powered source, then nuclear ability plants should be used. yet then, 0bama close down Yucca Mountain, the most important maximum extreme priced hollow interior the floor we've. So, now there isn't any everlasting position to shop the spent gas. seize 22. thanks to to 0bama, you're on the fast music with the screaming liberal agenda heck bent on backing us into an extremely darkish nook. . .
2016-12-10 09:06:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear is the future, but not fission, fusion of hydrogen to helium (H4+electricity=HE+heat+light)
2006-07-13 09:02:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
we need to recycle more and build more nuclear power plants, it is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than burning coal.
2006-07-13 08:41:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear is non-renewable – like oil only more dangerous.
(The waste is minimized in the European system – but it’s extremely toxic.)
2006-07-13 10:07:52 · answer #7 · answered by ★Greed★ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
...and nuclear power plants release less radiation than coal burning plants.
2006-07-13 08:43:40 · answer #8 · answered by bequalming 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋