If there were only coal or nuclear power around,which would U consider as the lesser of 2 evils. and for what reasons
2007-06-13 21:57:42 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Green Living
Nuclear is much preferable over coal. The downsides are radioactive waste and increased prevalence of enriched uranium (and the tiny chance of a meltdown), but it creates no carbon dioxide. Coal is a terrible producer of carbon dioxide, and also dangerous to mine. Nuclear is the better of the two, but we need to utilize more renewable energy sources.
2007-06-14 05:14:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now I would say that coal is the lesser of 2 evils, simply because there is no truly safe way to transport and store nuclear waste - the cost of nuclear power, too, is quite high in the USA because of safety measures that must be in place...this could change. Coal burning plants can and are being made cleaner, and represent a realistic means of energy production until technical innovation allows for cheaper production of altnernative energy sources.
2007-06-14 16:51:05 · answer #2 · answered by milladoiro 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For me, nuclear. There is no such thing as completely safe energy (except solar), but I was informed by my father decades ago that the amount of lung cancers triggered by coal fired plants greatly exceeded the cancers caused by nuclear plants. That said, solar is on the way in - its close to getting to the point where it makes ECONOMIC sense to do so. Then even non-environmentalists will want it because it will be CHEAPER.
2007-06-14 05:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would rather live next to a Nuclear Plant, unless the "Clean Coal" technology reduces coal emmissions to acceptable levels.
2007-06-14 08:54:42 · answer #4 · answered by GABY 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am 100% against both but i would use nuclear even if it has lots of cons it is still cleaner than coal.
2007-06-14 05:29:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Coal + anthroposide. Reasons: There is no solution on where to put the nuclear waste. I sure as hell dont want it on my backyard. Do you?
2007-06-14 07:43:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not a tough question. Nuclear is the clear winner. It's alot cleaner, and uranium isn't mined by chopping entire mountains open and dumping them into streams either. Only a small minority of enviros opose nukes, and they're shrinking.
2007-06-14 11:50:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear fusion power will be the best if it ever becomes economically viable.
2007-06-14 05:10:59 · answer #8 · answered by A.V.R. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are some real nuts answering this question , real nuts. I say go ahead, live in a cave, wipe your but with a rock and oh by the way turn off your computer you hypocrites, it uses electrictiy you morons.
2007-06-14 10:09:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
neither... a true environmentalist can live without electricity.
2007-06-14 10:03:58 · answer #10 · answered by 36 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋