Nuclear equals good for the environment?

Question

There's a major company in Canada, and one in the United States who are trying to push for nuclear energy as they state it's better for the environment (and for political reasons). Although I know this is being promoted by people in whose best interest it is to promote this, it made me think. What is your response to this campaign, and how much does nuclear energy harm the environment?

Answer 1

Nuclear is definitely better for the environment. The emissions are low-to-none, as compared to the burning of fossil fuels, which release a tons of toxic gases and CO2 into the environment.

Spent fuel (nuclear waste) is an issue- the long half-life of spent U-235 (and U-238) means that spent fuel would have to be contained for a loooooooooong time. However the amounts are small. The amount of waste produced yearly by one plant is no more than several cubic feet. Way less than the 30 cubic feet of ash produced every MINUTE by coal burning plants.

Realistically speaking, one Chernobyl every 10 years would still do less damage to the environment than fossil fuel plants currently do.

Answer 2

Nuclear is a mixture of positives and negatives.

The negatives are that the waste is hazardous for a long time, and that people with nuclear power plants may use the technology to make bombs.

The positives are that they free countries from depending on oil, and they fight global warming. The last one wins out. We'll work on dealing with the negatives.

Answer 3

Hi. It has a short term benefit of not emitting CO2 but long time storage issues (REALLY long term) that could have a much more negative effect in the long term.

Answer 4

no

Answer 5

NO!!!