nuclear power vs burning fossil fuels [for energy]?

Question

tell your opinion. pros/cons

Answer 1

For starters both are not perfect energy sources as they both pollute in some way. But if i had to choose I would choose fossil fuels as with our technology we can reduce pollutions dramatically, until we can find an alternative fuel source.

With that said fossil fuels do release carbon dioxide but with new technology we can reduce this releasement of emissions. This is the main emission that fossil fuels release. Fossil fuels are more widely used fuel source as well.

Nuclear energy is used only for military purposes and electricity. Its not stated but indirectly nuclear energy does release carbon dioxide as the tools and power generation to build a nuclear power station relies on fossil fuels to build it.

Also the mining for uranium for nuclear energy is quite distructive to the environment for the most part fossil fuel mining is less evasive in most extractions.

Although nuclear energy directly doesn't release carbon dioxide it does release thermal energy in the water used as a cooling agent and there is radioactive waste that is dangerouse for 1000's of years. So over all I'd say fossil fuels is one of the better ones for now but not perfect as it releases carbon dioxide. So a different energy source needs to be found.

Hope that helps

Answer 2

Nuclear power:
-----Cons:
Expensive. No nuclear power plant has ever been constructed without extensive government subsidies. If they were really economical, we would see more of them.

Security. Fuel shipments=terrorist targets. Waste shipments=terrorist targets. Waste facilities=terrorist targets. Power plants=terrorist targets.

Waste disposal. Cambelp pointed out that waste is not too nasty, but it still must be accumulated in one place for a long long long long long time. This makes it VERY hard to convince local inhabitants to allow for any disposal. Not In My BackYard (NIMBY) is a force that science has yet to overcome.

Mining for fuel:
It takes a LOT of ore to produce a little bit of fuel. Reactors don't use a lot of fuel in any given year, but still. This is less of a con than a pet peeve. I don't like mining, as most mining processes are less than environmentally friendly. There are vast tracts of the world that have been permanantly contaminated due to careless mining.

-----Pros:
Reliable. From what I have read some of the new types of reactors are much simpler and more reliable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel:
--------Cons:
Exhaustable. There is a limited supply, and what is out there suffers from diminishing returns, i.e. we get the easy stuff first and then have to spend more energy getting out what is left. The consensus is that global energy needs will suck up what is left much sooner than most think.

Pollution. Carbon emissions, mercury from coal burning, particulate matter, and all sorts of other nasty stuff, including the mess that is made when we dig up/pump the stuff out of the ground.

--------Pros:
Still offers a good return on invested energy. There is simply a LOT of stored energy to be had.

Answer 3

When the Chernobyl nuclear power plant failed it ruined an area of rich beautiful land as large as the state of Pensylvania. Imagine this happening in the USA (which it almost did in the Three Mile Island incident).

Fossil fuels are cheap and abundant and can satisfy the energy needs of the planet for hundreds of years more.

Answer 4

Nuclear power is supposed to be cheaper and last longer if made by a power plant but it is very dangerous and if an earthquake or human error cause it to leak people could die or become contaminated by radiation poisoning. Fossil fuels have been around for ages, longer than nuclear I suppose. Oil has been used for many things from electricity, warming homes, used in lamps, powering cars. Although it is pretty cheap it causes terrible polution and that is what our world is going through now, a hole in the ozone because of it.

Answer 5

I favor nuclear power because it does not emit green house gasses. Radioactive waste can be safely processed and buried with existing technology. Basically the waste is vitrified into a glassy state that is less dangerous that the uranium ore that was dug out of the ground to make it, and then it is buried in a stable geological formation, like a salt mine. There are fears that if countries like Iran get nuclear reactors that nuclear weapons will quickly follow though.

Answer 6

Nuclear potential produces plenty extra potential than fossil fuels. i think of one uranium pellet produces a similar volume of potential as like 25 barrels of oil. additionally nuclear potential is extra green using fact it would not produce as plenty CO2 emissions. in case you in addition to mght ought to point the disadvantage it would be that that's extra costly and many study nonetheless desires to be completed on the thank you to mantain it effectively. We would not want yet another Chernobyl or something like what got here approximately in Japan. Sorry approximately no longer having materials yet i'm on a telephone. in case you purely seek nuclear potential on google you will get materials for what I only mentioned.

Answer 7

The burning is my choice as mother nature is programed to recycle the CO2 with plants. It is a natural thing and don't fool with nature.