why is the use of nuclear energy controversial?

Answer 1

Peoples are afraid of it.

One of the issue is that if an accident (major one) happens this is most likely disastrous.

As you might know, this is theoretically impossible to build something that will never fail.

Personally, I believe enough precaution in the design can make even a major accident looks bleak (but expensive as the plant would be unusable).

One example, would be to build the nuclear plants underground, limit their size and far enough from the main population, not to mention the already existing security features.

A possible problem with this: cost. Most likely very or too expensive.

Another issue is waste disposal.

And finally, nuclear proliferation, the fuel can be used for other, less friendly, purposes.

Look at some info about the CANDU reactor (safety features, nuclear proliferation) and also the other links about waste disposal and treatment.

Answer 2

The only two bona fide issues with nuclear energy are:

a. disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste

b. safe operation of nuclear power plants

Many other issues are raised by environmental nut-cases and professional protesters, who achieve meaning in their lives by being against everything. However, by chance, they were right about problems in safely operating nuclear power plants.

In the United States, Yucca mountain in Nevada has been chosen as the repository for power plant reactor waste, so this issue is just about solved.

Safely building and operating a nuclear power plant has not been entirely worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

If you read the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear accident report, the operators behaved like keystone cops, and managed to trash a reactor core with little effort.

In Chernobyl, the core burned due to a SAFETY TEST of all things. The power plant was designed to also breed plutonium for nuclear weapons, and be refueled without shutting down. This required a design which had very little margin for operator error (technically a "positive void coefficient").

People do build and operate manufacturing plants for some extremely delicate and demanding products, like microprocessors and iv pharmaceuticals. In addition, the US Navy operates nuclear reactors on ships and subs without incident.

But this is not cheap to do, and the American power industry's culture does not encourage anything close to the discipline needed to safely operate nuclear power plants.

The latest power outage across the Northern U.S. and Canada does not inspire confidence in their ability to manage anything more complex than a corner hot dog stand, and maybe not even that.

Radiation leaks and contamination can be very scary, and can trash the local environment for the indefinite future. That is what protestors most effectively use in their protests, because past nuclear accidents leave little doubt bad things like this can happen again.

Answer 3

A nuclear reactor can leak or have a meltdown and cover a very large area with radiation! Many many people would die! This is not cleaned up with a mop and a broom! It would take decades for that land mass to be usable again.
Then there is the dealing with the nuclear waste. The rods are radioactive and will be for thousands of years. Currently they are sealed in lead, encased in glass then burried in vaults in the mountains of Nevada. What happens if there is an earthquake?

Answer 4

nuclear energy can be used for power generation
and at the same time there are destructive purposes

if not properly maintained accidents may occur
disposal of radio active wastes is also a problem

Answer 5

because if you are using nuclear energy it is only 1 or 2 more step's to being able to make nuclear weapons. and thier are certin countries that i know I don't trust with a nuclear bomb

Answer 6

Google 'Chernobyl"