What is better, a nuclear power plant or a fossil fuel burning power plant?

Question

I need a LOT of help with this one.
What in the world is the better power plant? I know the nuclear power plants are really dangerous...but the fossil fuel plants are pretty bad for the environment.
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP!
I need a good website or a decent amount of information on this subject.
Hope to find someone who has something! Haha

Thank you!

Answer 1

Nuclear power plants are not at all dangerous.

The only instance in which there were significant casualties was the Chernobyl incident, and that was a decrepit, poorly-built reactor operated by under-qualified technicians.

The safety record for United States nuclear reactors stands at 0 fatalities, and new advances in computer control would improve safety even more.

As for the nuclear waste, there are dozens of geologically-stable storage sites which could house vast quantities of fuel at essentially no risk to anyone.

Answer 2

They both have there down points, fossil fuels are not renewable and pollute. At the same time nuclear last longer per volume of fuel but after the fuel is spent you have to find something to do with it. As far as safety they both have their dangers, have you ever seen a tank of compressed natural gas explode. On the other hand nuclear power does have the danger of radiation, remember Chernobyl, but in more modern reactor design there is little risk after all 3-mile island released no radiation into the atmosphere. As far as which is better, well both have draw backs so depending on immediate issues governing the decision, like maybe the lack of fossil fuels for instance or polluting the planet. On the other hand fear of nuclear poisoning due to attack or lack of a place to store spent fuel. My opinion is nuclear but when it comes down to it, the situation governs which is better.

Answer 3

Well, it depends on your definition of "better". Does "better" mean that it always pumps out carbon dioxide from "old" carbon that has been kept out of the cycle for millions of years, along with -- since coal isn't actually just pure carbon -- all kinds of other toxins including radioactive materials? Or does "better" mean that under extraordinarily unlikely circumstances, it could fail entirely safely but in such a way that it will never work again (meaning you would have to build a whole new one from scratch), and in even rarer circumstances -- think septuplets separated at birth, winning the lottery in seven different countries on the same day, and all being struck by lightning on the way to spend their winnings -- it could release radioactive material into the environment? (Chernobyl was instigated deliberately, and modern reactor designs can't fail that way. Even Three Mile Island wasn't that big a deal and again, modern reactor designs don't fail that way.)

Fossil fuels and nuclear fuel are both going to run out eventually, so that particular argument is irrelevant. (But a fossil-fuel burning power station could more easily be modified to run on biomass.)

Answer 4

Many people fear nuclear power plants, because of this notion that they could suddenly explode and send radioactive material showering for miles around. But the fact is, modern nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy there is. With new technology, another Chernobyl is almost impossible. Coal power plants use billions of tons of coal a year, and pollute the atmosphere. Nuclear plants use only 2000 tons of material a year, produce almost no leftover waste (thanks to new technology), and do not pollute the atmosphere at all. If the world converted to nuclear energy, global warming would be history. So, to answer your original question, nuclear power is far better.

Answer 5

Takes about 30 years to pay back a Nuclear plant. Fossil fuel plant are quicker. Nuclear plant will eventually produce 100,000 year decay waste. Fossil fuel plants produce lots of CO2, SO2, mercury. All of which can be scrubbed.;

Answer 6

the only fossil fuels utilized by utilizing a nuclear skill plant are those linked with the autos and automobiles that are used to construct it, furnish it, get human beings there to artwork, and carry away the trash. A nuclear skill plant additionally has emergency back-up diesel turbines that furnish sufficient skill to maintain the emergency platforms working if there's a loss of off-website skill. (confident, it extremely is extraordinary, yet a nuke plant won't be able to use it extremely is very own electric powered skill to skill it extremely is very own lights... it needs to be linked to the grid and the grid needs to have skill.) There are additionally fossil fuels used to mine the uranium, delivery it, enhance it, and fabricate it into gas factors. as quickly as the plant is close down, greater fossil fuels would be used to run the automobiles and kit mandatory to tear it down and remove all the numerous wastes. A nuke plant generates skill for the duration of the fissioning of uranium that releases skill that's used to boil water, create steam, and run a steam turbine linked to a generator. the only detrimental ingredient approximately that's that all and sundry is terrified of it as a results of fact of 40 years of father lifestyle telling those which you will go through a sort of impossible outcomes from radiation. in accordance to Stan Lee, you could exchange into the Hulk or Spiderman or between the X-adult adult males for this reason of radiation's outcomes. it is loopy and thoroughly no longer actual.

Answer 7

A large prison facility with lots of bicycle-powered dynamo where prisoners will cycle to produce power.

Answer 8

both of those ways have their own pros & cons.
but I think nuclear power plant is more relevant nowadays.