Nuclear Energy?

Question

I need you guys to help me for my science fair project. Do you think nuclear energy is bad and wrong? Why or why not?

Answer 1

We definitely need nuclear energy. Modern reactor designs are very safe and there are now ways to keep the waste products safely out of the environment. The one big remaining argument against them is nuclear proliferation. North Korea said they needed a reactor for power, then they built a bomb. Now Iran says they need a reactor for power, but everybody knows they want to build a bomb.

Answer 2

That's a very complex question.

From a CO2 standpoint, nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases. However, it does take an obscene amount of energy to refine the uranium into fissionable material. Since the isotope of Uranium (U235) that is used for fission is such a small percentage of the total of the element.

As for the waste, newly designed reactors are operating longer on the same amount of fuel due to learning's in how to load the fuel in the rods and unspent uranium can be recovered. That said, it is still a concern.

Some countries, like Sweden and France, generate up to 80% of their power with nuclear energy. It's only 20% in the US, but more reactors will be built in the next ten years.

If you're thinking nuclear power will be the cure for global warming, not a chance, there is no "silver bullet". To get away from fossil fuels we will need a combination of many different energy sources including nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

Answer 3

It takes a special type of Nuclear Reactor to produce weapons. It is called a Breeder Reactor and it's construction is easily detected. A reactor for research or electricity is an entirely different type of reactor. It is the energy of the future as there is not enough resources to build the number of wind generators needed for a modern living standards, and solar voltaic cells cost more energy to produce than the cells can give back. The spent fuel rods (actually pellets stacked on top of each other) can be cleaned of lead and other contaminates and reused many thousands of time. It is peoples fear of old technology that caused state laws prohibiting the shipping of spent fuel rods to South Carolina where they can be cleaned and reused. Almost every large city in Europe has a nuclear reactor supplying power and they haven't had accidents. The technology is available, we just need to use it.

Answer 4

It depends on your point of view. Personally, I think it is good. The waste from a nuclear plant is minuscule compared to the waste generated by a fossil fuel based plant. Granted the waste will remain for a very long time, but disposal sites can be found to store the material (hopefully a future use can be found). Ideally sun and wind would be used but the energy would be insufficient to meet the needs. Fossil fuel plants generate enormous amounts of exhaust wastes that pollute the environment and waste heat (along with the exhaust gasses) that promote global warming. We need to have nuclear plants that are as safe as possible with the newest technology. It would be great to have a world nuclear agency that controls all nuclear plants that would shut down unsafe plants and replace them with new plants. The agency could control the nuclear wastes (possible fuel for bombs-keeping these wastes out of any improper hands).

Answer 5

Bad, on ecology standpoint to inefficiency issue.

1. most "tree farms" are closing to disposal of used rods. making disposal nuclear waste hard

2. The most efficient reactors only use 5 - 15% of energy in the power rods, Leaving of used nuclear
waste when stored, at highly contaminating state. Making nuclear just as wasteful if not more as fossil fuel plants.

Answer 6

I think we should have more of it, although I confess I took my one and only nuclear engineering class in 1975.

Advantages: Doesn't affect global warming, relies on a resource that isn't as scarce or geopolitically troublesome as fossil fuels, the inherent near-term pollution is generally trivial, and capital costs are PROBABLY low enough not to outweigh the advantages.

Disadvantages: Fear of accident, fear of terrorism-induced accident, fear of fissionable materials being stolen (nonsense in the US), fear of inspiring other countries to nuclear proliferation (they're doing it anyway), fear of waste products being stolen and used for terrorist purposes, fear of accident (perhaps caused by terrorism) while waste products are being transported, lack of good permanent solution for waste product storage anyway.

Basically, for decades to come the waste products would just have to be stored on site, and new plants would need to be planned accordingly.

Answer 7

If our Government would answer the question honestly and in layman's terms then more would understand whether it is good or bad. I for one do not know enough about it to give an answer. LOL. That is another thing, there are many who don't know, but would not admit to not knowing.

Answer 8

I wouldn't recommend it for a science fair project unless you have a rocket that'll send the spent fuel and waste into jupiter for safe keeping.

Answer 9

Pros: Fusion occurs naturally
Cons: Causes toxic waste, fission hard to do, & used for wrong purposes

So, i don't really know.

Answer 10

it is good for us because it create energy.