What are some positive or negative (or both) affects of Nuclear energy?
Please help, thanx
2007-12-17 01:26:47 · 6 answers · asked by mojo00 2 in Environment ➔ Green Living
Nuclear energy produces huge quantities of power without producing any green house gases.
The amount of waste produced in one year can fit under your desk.
It's safe. More people are killed each year putting up wind towers than killed in the nuclear power plants.
People just fear what they don't understand.
2007-12-17 01:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A nuclear plant emits radiation which is dangerous. It also gives rise to dangerous waste a solution for which has yet to be found. So at the moment the waste is simply stored at great cost and emitting radiation. The nuclear reactors only last about 20 or 30 years and then need to be decommissioned at which point they become nuclear waste and nobody knows what to do with them. The reactors and the piles of waste are a target for terrorists and a catastrophic accident waiting to happen. Mining the uranium, transporting it in heavy sealed containers, building the reactors and storing the waste are all operations that emit CO2 which causes global warming. So while nuclear power seems cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels it is nowhere near as clean as the proponents make out. Nor is it cheap. Finally uranium is just another fossil fuel that will run short and become ever more expensive if it gets used for fuel. We need to reduce energy use and convert to non-fossil sources such as wind, wave, tide, hydro and solar. Nuclear is not the answer.
2016-05-24 08:16:45 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like the others said nuclear energy only uses a small amount of a radioactive element, usually Uranium-235 to produce an exponetial amount of energy. The plants are safe and have to go through very strict cautionary procedures and building requirements. Using nuclear energy will lower dependence on other countries to provide fuel. Said to lesson need for fossil fuels, and therefore help fight global warming.
Unfortunately Nuclear energy should be the alternitive energy of the future. It is also a non-renewable resource. After U-235 is used for energy it is radioactive, and in order for it to be safe it has to go through 10 half-lives, the time it takes to lose half its energy. so if U235 takes 10,000 years for one half life then 5,000 for the second one, 2500 for the third and so on.(I dont think that's the actual half life) But you can see where it could take up to hundreds of thousands of years to declare it safe. We have to find a safe way to transport it and to store it for that long. Waste could possibly be used for weapons.
Ok that was really long, but I hope it helps a little.
2007-12-17 07:43:52 · answer #3 · answered by KJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the bad part of Nuclear Energy is that it produces a toxic waste so deadly that after 50+ years of producing it the US still does not have a waste site open. This toxic waste takes 40,000 years to degrade to a point where it will be safe again. There is no know material that can contain it for that long. The only hope is to bury it deep enough into rock that no one will ever be able to get to it. I am ashamed to admit that our generations will put this burden on so many countless future generations.
2007-12-17 01:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by countryguyhfc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can read about nuclear energy here:
http://www.greenstudentu.com/Nuclear_Energy.aspx
2007-12-19 05:21:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Upside: huge amounts of energy no matter what the conditions. (solar, wind can't say that)
Downside: Chernobyl, 3-mile island.
2007-12-20 17:55:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋