what are the disadvantages of nuclear energy?

Answer 1

The major disadvantage is the disposal of the radioactive waste.

Safety-wise they have a better record than other energy production facilites, although I will admit that when they do go wrong its pretty spectacular.

As regards their impact on the environment, again not so bad as most people would have you believe. I think I'd rather have a Windscale than a Bhopal in my back garden.

Lets be logical here.........we need energy............we are not going to get enough energy by building wind farms (ignoring the argument about their cost-effectiveness).

So what's the solution? Build fossil fuel burning power stations that churn out sulphur and CO2? Or look at a new generation of cleaner and safer nuclear power ?

Answer 2

All alarmist attitudes aside the biggest problem is what to do with the high level radioactive waste. A lifetimes worth of energy for the average person would produce only a few cups of nuclear waste, opposed to tons of emissions per person by other common methods. But they don't build personal nuclear reactors, so each reactor produces a fair amount of waste and it must be properly stored and protected from people who would like to use to to do harm to others.

The nuclear track record from a safety stand point is actually very good but when things go wrong they can be a major problem.

The three mile island partial meltdown incident pretty much doomed nuclear power in the U.S. even though it has many advantages and that particular reactor design is no longer in use.

The Chernobyl thing really can't happen in most reactors, because instead of creating reactor buildings to keep people out we build them to keep radiation in, in the event of an emergency. They also are very effective at keeping people out. Most reactors also use water as a moderator instead of flammable graphite which was used in the Chernobyl design. Also we generally don't play with our reactor to see how long them can run without cooling before melting down.

Answer 3

The main one is the potential danger of radiation escaping into the atmosphere. Properly handled and supervised, this can be avoided. But it seems that whatever can go wrong will go wrong. So while the threat of a leak/meltdown/mistake can be minimized, it can never be totally removed.

The second problem is that you are dealing with a radioactive material that is highly desirable to terrorist types. Even the spent materials (nuclear waste) is attractive for making dirty bombs. So security is a problem. And finding somewhere to put the waste is an issue.

There is also evidence that nuclear energy is not as clean as they tell us. I saw or read an article about that a while ago, though I cannot provide a source. The waste water and steam coming out of those plants may not be as clean as they say....

Answer 4

Nuclear Power plants and similar nuclear facilities are actually very safe. They produce an excellent amount of energy with very little draw backs.

I live in the Tri-Cities, in Washington State. I live right next to the Nuclear power plant that was constructed for the production of the materials needed for the bombs used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima as part of the Manhatten project in World War 2. The Power plant is still operational and has never had a problem

The Nuclear waste is not a problem since methods have been developed to deal with it. For example, at the Hanford site, a process known as glassification is used to collect the waste, and it is then placed in to containers which are then buried in the ground. Other nuclear facilities have other methods of dealing with the waste, but overall, the waste is hardly and issue.

Events such as Chernobyl are extremely rare and we learn from such events anyway. As was mentioned before, we water is used more commonly to cool the reactors. Radiation is also not an issue to worry about at all. Proper precautions are always taken to minimize and even in some cases, nullify the radiation exposure a worker might recieve. The steam produced from the cooling towers is just that, steam. If you look at it, you'll notice it looks just like a regular cloud. As for radiation inside the facilities my father actually developed a device that keeps track of the exposure you have recieved. It's just like a little card that you will swipe once you have gone into a "radioactive" area (wearing a suit and all that fun stuff of course), and it tells you the radiation you were exposed to (which is usually miniscule amounts). If you were exposed to too much radiation, you are immediately treated, and an investigation is mobilized.

One of the least likely problems of nuclear energy is terrorists getting ahold of it. To explain this I might have to delve into some international relations but here goes nothing. First, getting nuclear energy making components or whatever from the U.S. is out of the question obviously. Here where I live, if you illegally enter the site, you are shot on the spot. So, to get the material needed for a weapon, you'd have to get it from a different country. The chances of anyone getting nuclear material from countries as a small terrorist group is near 1%. The only reason any country has nuclear weapons is because other countries do. They want to maintain their presense in the international "community", and at the same time, protect themselves. It's true that some countries might get nuclear weapon production components from countries like Russia, but countries like Russia would only give them those components if it helped them strategically. 9 times out of 10, a terrorist group would not have any strategic importance for a large country, because if it was found that a nuclear weapon produced by a terrorist group who got its materials from a big country, who is the vicitim country going to be angry with? Or even go to war with? If you wanted to produce nuclear material on your own, forget about it. You need major facilities, lots of man power, and tons of money. The process can take years.

I think you see my point, or at least I hope you do. Nuclear Energy is very safe, safer than a few other beloved forms of energy making actually. If you do your research, you'll find I'm right.

Answer 5

The biggest danger (based on likelyhood of happening and severity of the problem) is nuclear waste. Some nuclear waste can be used to salvage fissionable material for Atomic weapons. Other nuclear waste will remain radioactive for thousands of years. This waste has to be carefully accounted for, specially stored, ect. Even so, some waste is not accounted for.

Nuclear meltdown is possible, Chernobyl (sp) is an example, but if sufficient safegaurds are in place, there is a small chance of this.

Answer 6

The nations of the world now have more than enough nuclear bombs to kill every person on Earth. The two most powerful nations -- Russia and the United States -- have about 50,000 nuclear weapons between them. What if there were to be a nuclear war? What if terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons? Or what if nuclear weapons were launched by accident?

* Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.
* One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.
In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.
In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.
* Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.
The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.
In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.
* Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years

Answer 7

There are two big ones:

1. No-one has found a satisfactory way to deal with the waste products which remain very dangerous for millenia. We could consign hundreds of future generations to environmental catastrophe from just one accident.

2. Nuclear fuels are useful for nuclear weapons. The USA has already used them to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Thankfully, no other nation has yet, but one is bad enough.

Answer 8

Possibility of a Nuclear meltdown. Nuclear waste. Unsafe work environments.

Answer 9

Nuclear energy relieces less radioactivity into the environment than coal powered energy. The problem is that people are wrongly affraid of it because they think it can explode

Answer 10

it can be both useful & harmful.nowaday nuclear energy is so important for all the countries around the world.because of a very hi energy that is inside of U (Uranium) it is so dangerous for all of us if we use it in bad ways I mean for example for making nuclear bombs .if one of them explode in a city the whole city and citizens will be died.so it's important for us to use it in the best way and subsitute it insted of fossil fuels.