nuclear power - useful effects?

Question

I WANT THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SIDE OF NUCLEAR POWER

Answer 1

the positive effects: the positive side is that you can produce energy (electrical or heat) for a much lower cost than by using fossil fuels such as coal or oil. and unlike oil, the US isn't subject to an economic embargo or restriction by other nations on the fuel source.

the negative effects include a special type of pollution problem in dealing with the spent fuel assemblies and contaminated facilities, limited areas where you can erect reactors due to earthquakes, and the abuse of of plutonium produced by the reactor for weapons.

Answer 2

Positive - it can be used to produce power which is more Eco-friendly then any other power source known to men. If you would check the amount of CO2 emited by the regular heat and power plant, and compare the energy produced to the energy produced by nuclear power plant, waste produced by nuclear power plant is much smaller.

Negative - if a man makes a mistake, catastrophes may happen - just as the one in Chernobyl in 1986 - the nuclear power plant has blown up, irradiating the whole area.

Answer 3

If nuclear fusion, then i'm inquisitive about it. yet you're 100% incorrect about wind and image voltaic ability. Wind and image voltaic ability were offering this planet ever in view that this planet became formed. image voltaic ability were permitting plant life to recycle CO2 that we launch by respiratory into O2 and foodstuff. yet decrease back on topic, nuclear fission is likewise reliable IF there became a thanks to apply the nuclear wastes as an ability source. which ability micro atomic bombs to ability a turbine.

Answer 4

THERE IS NO POSITIVE EFFECTS OF NUCEAR POWER, JUST NEGATIVE NEGATIVE AND DISASTER

Answer 5

Nuclear power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Human use of nuclear power to do significant useful work is currently limited to nuclear fission and radioactive decay. Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235 (235U), is concentrated such that nuclear fission takes place in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat — which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity. Nuclear power is used to power most military submarines and aircraft carriers and provides 7% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity.[1] Nuclear energy policy differs between countries. The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—80% as of 2006.[2][3]

Nuclear energy uses an abundant, widely distributed fuel, and mitigates the greenhouse effect if used to replace fossil-fuel-derived electricity. International research is ongoing into various safety improvements, the use of nuclear fusion and additional uses such as the generation of hydrogen (in support of hydrogen economy schemes), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems. Construction of nuclear power plants declined following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments, the public, and some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants, and the low emission rate of greenhouse gas which some governments need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned.

The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use in some countries could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents believe that these risks are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups, believe nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. There is concern in some countries over North Korea and Iran operating research reactors and fuel enrichment plants, since those countries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be trying to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea admits that it is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian government vehemently denies the claims against Iran
Air pollution
Non-radioactive water vapour is the significant operating emission from nuclear power plants.[56] Fission produces gases such as iodine-131 or Xenon-133 which have to be stored on-site for several half-lives until they have decayed to safe levels.

Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone[57]). It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which contribute to global warming).

Like any power source (including renewables like wind and solar energy), the facilities to produce and distribute the electricity require energy to build and subsequently decommission. Mineral ores must be collected and processed to produce nuclear fuel. These processes are either directly powered by diesel and gasoline engines, or draw electricity from the power grid, which may be generated from fossil fuels. Life cycle analyses assess the amount of energy consumed by these processes (given today's mix of energy resources) and calculate, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, the amount of carbon dioxide saved (related to the amount of electricity produced by the plant) vs. the amount of carbon dioxide used (related to construction and fuel acquisition).

Several life cycle analyses show similar emissions per kilowatt-hour from nuclear power and from renewables such as wind power. According to one life cycle study by van Leeuwen and Smith from 2001–2005, carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power per kilowatt hour could range from 20% to 120% of those for natural gas-fired power stations depending on the availability of high grade ores.[58] The study was rebutted in detail by the World Nuclear Association.[32]

In 2006, a UK government advisory panel, The Sustainable Development Commission, concluded that if the UK's existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would provide an 8% decrease in total UK CO2 emissions by 2035. This can be compared to the country's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 % by 2050. As of 2006, the UK government was to publish its official findings later in the year.[59]


[edit] Waste heat in water systems
Nuclear reactors require cooling, typically with water (sometimes indirectly). The process of extracting energy from a heat source, called the Rankine cycle, requires the steam to be cooled down. Rivers are the most common source of cooling water, as well as the destination for waste heat. The temperature of exhaust water must be regulated to avoid killing fish; long-term impact of hotter-than-natural water on ecosystems is an environmental concern. In most new facilites, this problem is solved by implementing cooling towers.

The need to regulate exhaust temperature also limits generation capacity. On extremely hot days, which is when demand can be at its highest, the capacity of a nuclear plant may go down because the incoming water is warmer to begin with and is thus less effective as a coolant, per unit volume. This was a significant factor during the European heat wave of 2003. Engineers consider this in making improved power plant designs because increased cooling capacity will increase costs.



for more details see the below site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power