No CO2
No other air pollution
Cheaper, more plentiful fuel (especially if it's bred)
Conserves oil, coal, and gas for more appropriate uses such as plastics, lubricant, medicine, helium extraction.
2007-06-14 02:58:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dr. R 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Advances in nuclear technology have made it much safer.
Nuclear energy is clean and dose not produce hydro carbons or pollute the atmosphere like coal and oil.
Nuclear energy produces more power for the amount of dollars used.
Nuclear energy produces byproducts that are useful in replenishing nuclear weapons.
Nuclear energy, if generated near salt water, can produce fresh water by using it's cooling water to create distilled water.
Nuclear energy plants creates high paying jobs.
Nuclear energy plants create higher surrounding area security.
Nuclear energy can be used to crack hydrogen from water to be used in cars and large trucks as a clean burning fuel.
Nuclear energy can slow or stop global warming.
2007-06-14 09:47:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by wernerslave 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
One of its best qualities is that it gives off lots of energy from little amounts of uranium. Another advantage to this form of energy is that it doesn't give off greenhouse gases.
Nuclear energy is cheap too and it helps provide jobs to people. Perhaps the biggest advantage to nuclear energy is the discoveries they have made in nuclear medicine. Such as cancer therapy, CAT scan, MRI machines and the use of irradiation of food.
One major disadvantage is that it makes variable amounts of radioactive waste and along with that there is a chance of a meltdown
2007-06-14 09:37:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by M Series 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nuclear energy is mostly carbon emission free.
Also, nuclear fuel is much more energy dense than something like coal by a factor of about 320,000. A 1000MW nuclear plant would need something like 4 tons of fuel per year. Whereas a similarly sized coal plant would need something like 1.4 million tons of fuel per year. This means a nuclear power plant would need to be refueled a few times a year, while a coal plant needs tons of coal to be delivered every day.
Nuclear power may also release less nuclear material into the environment than coal. "How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion."
2007-06-14 09:50:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by kerry.neubrander 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clean, safe if properly supervised and cooled, does not produce carbon dyoxide, small spaces to store uranium, and reliable constant production of energy, onverting it into kynetic water vapor to move electricity generating turbines...
There is no messy use of organic fuels , the energy can be classified as renewable, and saves a lot of emissions to the atmosphere, (only water vapor)...which is harmless..
Inconveniences:
Politically dangerous (ask iranians)
Technically demanding (remember Chernobyl)
2007-06-22 02:23:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sehr_Klug 50 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No pollution (other than nuclear waste). Abundant energy source (uranium). Plenty of safety built in to the plants. Cheap energy source.
2007-06-14 09:31:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by yeeeehaw 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Advantages =
- Does not emit greenhouse gases
- Little fuel (uranium) is needed to produce energy
- Can be built anywhere (opposed to hydroelectric) and in sparsely populated areas (should be)
- Technology readily available, no more research needs to be conducted
2007-06-14 09:35:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Tsumego 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No CO2 emissions (which apparently contribute to global warming).
The solid nuclear waste is much less of a problem than anti-nuke activists would lead us to believe, especially if the waste is re-processed into new fuel rods.
.
2007-06-14 09:33:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by tlbs101 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
more power from a less polluting energy source (when fossil fuels are depleting and co2 levels rising ,greenhouse effect etc)
2007-06-19 11:33:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by wasif 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
It can be rapidly re-configured into a Weapon of Mass Destruction âº
Doug
2007-06-14 09:32:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by doug_donaghue 7
·
0⤊
1⤋