Don't you think that Nuclear Power for electricity is kinda dangerous?

Question

Consider this while you answer.
1)Terrorist Threat
2)Mechanical Problem

While you are at this question, also can some one tell me the pros and cons of this kind of power vs. wind energy.

Answer 1

The debate about nuclear power and how safe or dangerous it is depends on what points you look at.

Does it create pollution?
Depends on what pollution you look at and if you include the mining, refining, using, storing of uranium. Nuclear reactors are not a major source of CO2, but the mining of uranium can be and the building of the reactor is. Nuclear reactors ARE a major contributor of thermal pollution as they need water as a coolant.

As for a terrorist threat and mechanical problems there are many fail safes to deal with this. The terrorist threat is more of the used core rods than anythiing. These need to be secured.

But Nuclear power is not as good as it sounds you need to contain securely its waste products which is costly.

Wind energy is renewable nuclear energy is not although nuclear energy converts more than wind but wind is cheaper than nuclear energy ever will be.

Nuclear energy is not that cheap as the power plant is worth billions its costly to mine uranium and store it plus there is the environmental damage to deal with... Overall nuclear energy is a fuel of the past there are better alternatives to nuclear energy. The only thing going for nuclear power is its developed so it can hold us for now until we get alternative fuel sources up and running.

HOpe that helps

Answer 2

Western designed reactors (along with the recent Russian ones) are about the safest power plants out there and even the old Soviet RBMKs were probably still safer than most coal power plants even before the post Chernobyl upgrades. Mechanical problems can be dealt with by having a lot of redundancy (very common in safety critical systems), highly reliable components, good operators that know how to handle failures when they occur and that big containment structure that prevents radioactive stuff getting out should the worst happen.

Terrorists aren't much of a problem for nuclear power, most nuclear power plants have armed guards on site ready to shoot anyone who tries to break in and plant a bomb and the containment structure is built tough enough to withstand a fighter jet hitting it at almost the speed of sound. Simulations indicate that it could probably survive an airliner being crashed into it.

Nuclear power has the pro compared to wind energy of actually being able to solve our fossil fuel problem but it has the con of idiots who don't know any better opposing it.

Answer 3

Everything carries some risk.

A few years ago you could still make a case that nuclear power was "too risky". That day is gone. Global warming is far more risky.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407

Of course we need to engineer good plants, with protections against terrorism and accidents. Waste disposal is more a political issue than a technical one.

We should develop wind power too. And solar. But right now, only nuclear can replace a large chunk of fossil fuel. Which we _really_ need to do.

Answer 4

an existing nuclear facility makes an appealing target for terrorist attack for the same reason terrorist are interested in obtaining nuclear materials to make a 'dirty bomb' explosive device. its a lot like biological weapons, in that once released into the atmosphere, it spreads by wind currents so even a small release can cause death or sickness for lots of people.

the operation of nuclear facilities and storage of spent nuclear waste (thousands of years) is so heavily regulated due to safety concerns that it is too expensive to build reactors now days. the insurance industry won't touch one either. after events like 3-mile island and chernobyl, the world learned the hard way that the benefits of nuclear- generated electricity were heavily outweighed by the safety issues.

compared to wind power, nuclear energy is much more efficient since it is a constant source of power unlike wind turbines when there is no wind and a reactor can be centrally located to produce a lot more electricity than acres and acres of wind turbines in the typical 'wind farm'

the cons however are the security (keeping it out of the hands of terrorists), safety and waste storage problems i already mentioned.

Answer 5

With each nuclear plant built, the chances of a Chernobyl type disaster go up. An area as large as Pennsylvania was heavily irradiated. The casualty toll is in the hundreds of thousands. It isn'a a pretty scenario.

Answer 6

No. Not unless you do it wrong, or have shoddy maintenance records.