Yes it is because it does not release any greenhouse gases. The only relative problem is waste, but they can be reused in new power plants to power the turbines. And it costs less, fossil fuels will run out in 40 years, whereas nuclear will never.
2007-06-24 22:26:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Roger 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Any form of capability that produces super quantities of ability may well be risky if improperly controlled. Nuclear ability isn't any diverse. the main effectual problems with nuclear ability are containing the capability created and coping with the waste. The reaction that occurs interior of a nuclear reactor is the comparable reaction that occurs interior of an Atomic Bomb. the form is interior the way the capability is harnessed. In a reactor the capability is contained and the reaction moderated to supply warmth in a controlled way. This administration finally leads to a brilliant number of capability at a low fee with a minimum quantity of waste. there is as a lot layout and money spent on the containment (administration) of this reaction as spent on the production of capability. for this reason a suitable designed and operated nuclear ability plant is as secure as the different form of capability. As to the waste. - As I reported until eventually now the production of nuclear ability creates a small quantity of radio lively waste. Canada has approximately 30 working nuclear reactors. they have been working for extra or less 40 years. as much as now the entire storage of radio lively waste demands a close-by of decrease than 50 acres entire section. This includes all centers mandatory for containment and secure storage. In Canada there is at recent a learn into long selection (for ever) storage. this difficulty would be solved yet for now the present equipment isn't insurmountable. for this reason nuclear ability is secure.
2016-09-28 10:21:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is always a risk of a nuclear accident like Chernobyl. However, if caution is taken, this should not arrive.
For me ,the pollution due to thermal production of electricity is statistically more harmful that nuclear energy
2007-06-24 22:19:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by maussy 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think in this part of the world. Our reactors are well maintained and looked after. Nuclear waste has to be thought of. Other parts of the world I would not trust a reactor for many years due to maintenance neglect like Chernobyl
2007-06-24 22:23:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is quite safe, at least in the United States and other major industrialized nations. We have so many safeguards and checks that a catastrophic failure would be extremely difficult. The worst nuclear accident in US history was 3 Mile Island. The death toll from that accident was....
0.
2007-06-25 15:09:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Steve 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
depends on the design,
some new designs can not melt down, and can be turned on and off like a light switch.
new designs cannot be built in the USA because of environmental rules blocking any new reactor.
breeder reactors can make there own fuel and can be set up not to make much waste,
but they are not allowed because they can easily be used to make nuclear weapons.
so, physically possible,
politically not possible.
2007-06-24 22:20:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by sweety_atspacecase0 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not really. There is always the problem of waste disposal.
2007-06-24 22:16:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Runa 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yep til theres a melt down just ask these guys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
2007-06-24 22:19:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by ynot_chas 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
i really dont know
2007-06-24 22:16:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by amansamaiyar 1
·
0⤊
2⤋