Nuclear power is envir. friendly and able to produce great amts of energy, why are there still coal pwr plants

Question

what is exactly holding our nation and many others from converting to nuclear power plants?

Answer 1

The same great people that have given us "global warming" also dislike nuclear energy. Go figure.

Answer 2

I'm gonna take the side that it IS environmentally friendly when compared to coal, oil, and natural gas. The thing about nuclear power plants is that they get a lot of bad publicity (as you can tell) and most people don't want them in their backyards. Truth of the matter is that nuclear power plants are much safer from terrorist attacks than many other fossil fuel energy plants. There's not too many weapons, machines, etc. that can take out the thick cement of nuclear plants. Yes, there is radioactive waste, but it's burried in a remote place that can't effect anyone (nowadays anyways). Nuclear power plants have more safety regulations than any other type of power plant and the mishaps have been due to faulty staff and poor equipment. How many nuclear plants have you heard blown up recently? But with all these benefits you are right to question why keep going back to fossil fuels? The answer is rather simple. The energy companies don't look at what exactly they build. They look at numbers. How much money will building this plant cost them and how much will it make them? Coal, as opposed to oil, is much more abundent and there are still a ton of coal reserves left in the US, meaning that 1) coal power plants are cheaper than nuclear and 2) there's less dependence on unstable foreign powers for resources to fuel the plant.

Answer 3

It's not environmentally friendly in the sense that it produces large amounts of radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere for thousands of years, and also because it carries the risk of massive environmental contamination in the event of an accident.

But to answer your question, the major reason is cost: there is a heck of a lot of coal out there, and burning it is much much cheaper and easier than building and running a nuclear power plant. That being said, many countries are, in fact, putting more of an emphasis on nuclear power these days. In Ontario, Canada, for instance, the government is phasing out coal plants completely and replacing them in large part with more nuclear plants. (Iran might be another example of this phenomenon, but who's to say what the Iranian government is really up to?)

Answer 4

the amount of waste produced, where to store the waste, and the concerns of nuclear proliferation plus it takes almost ten years to build a plant and getting the fuel can be hard

another problem is what can happen like chernobyl and three mile island there is great concern over a meltdown and then the radioactive fallout

coal plants are just easier to use, make, and cheaper altough they have devestating effects on the environment

nuclear power is way better then coal but u try telling the government that

hope this helps good luck

Answer 5

Nuclear (fission) power inherently requires and produces radioactive material. If we could find a way to drill a hole into the earth's mantle to get rid of the stuff, we could at least solve that problem. Another problem is that a a (fission) chain reaction can run away, overheat, and explode, spreading radioactivity over a large area. This also makes it vunerable to terrorism.

If they could develop controlled nuclear fusion, however, all these problems are solved. Nuclear fusion is like the holy grail of energy, free and safe energy, if we could ever figure it out. Scientists confidently expect it with in the next decade every decade or so.

Answer 6

Nuclear power plants require precision engineering and high-tech materials and all current designs are large. This means large investments with long lead times. Cheap and fast coal plants are much more attractive to developing countries . The U.S. has a lot of preexisting coal-fired plants and absolutely no economic or legal incentive to convert. Our administration has been active in decisions that make it easier for an obsolete coal-fired plant to stay on line.

Answer 7

It ISN'T entirely enviromentally friendly, it produces Radioactive waste.

Add: Oh yeah, it only remainds radioactive and deadly to humans for THOUSANDS of years, no problem, right? Just like the polar ice caps melting Mr Smartass?

Add2: What is that one nuclear plant in Europe that had this huge contamination problem, and there were babies being born green and 2 headed goats? Slips my mind at the moment...

Answer 8

Nuclear power is definetly not envir. friendly. Terrorists can bomb it and kill you. You will grow 15 fingers on each hand if you get exposed and you will literally turn into "The Elephant Man" who chocked to death from his own head being too big. So you be the judge.

Answer 9

Because of Three Mile Island and Chernoble