1. long time to build a nuclear plant (10-20 years);
2. critical supervision and quality control;
3. disposal of spent fuel;
4. potential for dangerous leak of radioactive materials into the air and/or water (such as occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania or Chernobyl in Russia;
5. Requires high security precautions once operating because of the potential for theft of nuclear material and/or terrorist attack;
6. Requires a large isolated area away from highly populated area;
7. Because of #6 requires extension of distribution system;
8. Poor public perception -NIMBY: "not in my back yard";
9. Requires a constant, large water supply for cooling.
2007-10-25 15:37:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by idiot detector 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only con I can think of is the transport and long term storage of the spent fuel rods. They have a half life of thousands of years and can kill people with their residual radiation. The government has built a special place to store the spent rods, but the transportation of these rods could be dangerous if terrorists got hold of them. Other than that, it is cleaner than coal burning stations and relatively safe if all safety procedures are followed. The question of human error will always be a problem no matter what dangerous material is being handled. I live about 5 miles from a nuclear power plant. It's kind of cool. We can see the plumes from the cooling towers west of here and we have magnificent sunsets because of them.
2007-10-25 22:45:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by kcpaull 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Incredibly difficult to control.
Extremely toxic fuel.
Potential for major disaster in a catastrophic failure.
Spent fuel extremely radioactive for thousands of years.
No place to permanently dispose of spent fuel.
Warm water discharge in a stream alters the environment of the stream.
After 9/11, potentially a terrorist target.
2007-10-25 22:36:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tom-PG 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
none, it's clean and very safe.
2007-10-25 22:33:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by jon_mac_usa_007 7
·
0⤊
0⤋