Nuclear is cheap and it does not emit a lot of pollution.
But a lot of hard to dispose waste is produced. And those waste are contagious. A small leak can cause a huge damage to the environment and people's health.
But i think these plants are increasing their safety as fast as possible.
2007-01-22 06:52:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by BMW M5 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
First off, as mentioned previously, it does not use fossil fuels and gives off very little pollution compared to other sources of energy. Also mentioned previously, energy produced by a nuclear power plant is cheaper than from other sources.
While it takes a lot of capital to build a nuclear powerplant, they're typical operating lifetimes are 30-50 years, and a regulatory agency can renew their license. Theoretically, with proper maintenance, a nuclear power plant can run forever.
Nuclear power plants provide thousands of jobs in various services, such as building construction, reactor construction and operation of the plant. Also, reactors can be added to the plant at a future date, should power not be sufficient. Also concerning sufficient power, they are an excellent addition to any power grid, thus eliminating any fluctuations that produce brownouts and blackouts.
The current Generation III as well as the future Generation III+ reactors have improved safety, including redundant systems, and it is highly unlikely that an accident like Three Mile Island (which I feel has been overblown) and Chernobyl would happen with a properly maintained nuclear power plant.
As for concern over spent nuclear fuel, there is concern over storing it, but provided it is sealed in strong casks, in a pit made of layers of concrete, it can be stored for hundreds of years. Science might eventually find use for spent nuclear fuel, or the Yucca Mountain Repository currently proposed would transfer the nuclear fuel from the 100 or so sites it's currently stored to just one facility.
I am a strong proponent of nuclear power and hope to see new plants going up soon, allowing us less reliance on unreplaceable and polluting fossil fuels.
2007-01-24 09:57:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The main benefit is that fossil fuels are not burned to create electricity. Technically no greenhouse gasses are emitted, either, tho the net amount of energy released into the atmosphere will rise by the same amount whether coming from fossil fuel burning or nuclear power. The disadvantage is the highly poisonous nature of the fuel and byproducts, and the fact that terrorists or an accident could produce a catastrophe such as occurred at Chernobyl in Ukraine, which made thousands of square miles of once valuable farmland uninhabitable for the forseeable future. I would rather see power derived from tides and ocean currents, it would be much safer and have virtually no environmental impact.
2007-01-22 04:11:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by jxt299 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Solar power would be the best overall, since we have global warming there would be plenty of power. Im not a fan of nuclear power at all, the risk outweighs the benefit, it is pretty scary stuff! They don't even know what to do with all of the toxic waste of those plants!
2007-01-22 05:31:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Urchin 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Shielded nuclear reactors give off less radiation than coal-burning plants. They tend to have much greater energy output as well, and, since they need very pure water to operate, tend to have water distillation on site, which could be expanded to provide pure water for the community.
2007-01-22 04:10:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by bequalming 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
nuclear power is cleaner then coal plants and you can produce much more power then coal plants or hydro plants although it takes 10 yrs. to build a new one the jobs and energy a community would have would be huge
2007-01-22 05:04:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by FutureRadiologist14 3
·
0⤊
1⤋