English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

fossil fuel generate a lot of pollution matter , how about nuclear power

2006-08-02 12:52:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Physics

9 answers

Mathmatically, nuclear is safer. Tens of thousands of people have died drilling for, refining and using petroleum. Far fewer have died from nuclear power generation.

2006-08-02 13:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes.
I am not an expert, but...
Which is better for the environment? Almost certainly nuclear. Because the pollution in a nuclear reactor is entirely contained. Where as enormous amounts of pollutants like sulfides, and carbon monoxide are released into the air by coal and oil plants.

Some people think that radiation from nuclear power plants is dangerous, and they are right, but lots of things produce dangerous radiation, like the Sun. The average person is exposed to 360 millirems of radiation. Adding a nuclear plant to the other forms of radiation you are exposed to will boost that number to 361 millirems. Not exactly a catastrophic shift, I think.

Economically, nuclear fuel is cheaper than oil or coal. But it is much more labor intensive, and the regulatory requirements add more costs. I don't know which is cheaper when you add all these factors in.

It is my opinion that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated by those opposed to nuclear weapons. But, when you think that 10,000 people a year die from black lung disease, the 1000 people that have died orwill die prematurely over the next 50 years from Chernobyl seem insignificant to me.

2006-08-10 10:32:28 · answer #2 · answered by Jimee77 4 · 0 0

Both have pollutant qualities. Although Nuclear waste has higher pollutant properties as for disposal goes. But fossil fuels can see much more environmental hazards associated with it, including water pollution from mining, air pollution from conversion to energy, and large areas that can be ruined if they are surface digging like eroding an entire mountain from the surface down.

2006-08-02 13:07:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

nuclear power is safer to generate electricity for the working condition, and the pollution generation for the current operation timeline. however the final waste produced by the nuclear reactors will be dangerous and must be contained in a waste site for 100,000 years. As long as the containment facility is kept in good order, the release to the environment will be minimal at best

2006-08-10 07:52:20 · answer #4 · answered by rev.nuclear 2 · 0 0

Even with the Chernobyl disaster, I think nuclear power generation has killed fewer people than fossil fuel power. And I find it hard to believe a reactor design as unsafe as Chernobyl will ever be built again.

2006-08-02 13:06:43 · answer #5 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 0

Both can be safe, the thing to consider is that both are limited in resource and both are very different. Fossil fuel is very portable and easy to distribute before burning it to do work. Nuclear is very immobile but so are electrical wires. So it makes sense to use fossil fuel for transportation, and nuclear for electricity.
This way we can maximize our ability to consume energy without rapidly depleting either.

2006-08-02 14:09:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As a former Research Associate [See source.] with a National Lab where nuke weapons were designed and tested, I do not like fission based nuke energy in any form or package. While the 3rd generation nuke plants might be way safer than the 2nd and 1st, that means for the threats we have anticipated and studied. It does not mean they are safer for those threats we have not yet identified...you know, like a tsunami causing the cooling system to tank and the exploding hydrogen gas from the overheated casings on the nuke rods. Like what happened in Japan at Fukishima. They are still digging out the bodies from that one. My point is this. "better" has to be evaluated by the benefits versus the costs and risks. And I continue to think nuke power is never better because of those unforeseen risks that can wipe out whole country sides.

2016-03-26 20:57:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think at this point in time nuclear is very safe and we need to get over the 3 Mile Island phobia and face the fact that we need another source of electrical generation.

2006-08-02 13:11:01 · answer #8 · answered by Iknowthisone 7 · 0 0

try posting in the student zone of

www.baajaa.com

other students in india will find you

good luck

2006-08-02 20:21:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers