Nuclear energy or renewable energy?

Question

what do you think about nuclear and renewable energy?which is better?

which kind of energy do you suggest for Italy ?(we don't have nuclear power plants because the green party and the environmentalist opposes it) sorry 4 my bad english, I'm Italian

Answer 1

Nuclear Power is better because you get more power for your money and for the amount of space the power plant uses.  Countries need large scale generating facilities, they can't generate enough energy to meet all their needs, residential, business, and industry just using Water, Solar, or Wind.

Answer 2

renovable energy and nuclear energy,combinated.

Answer 3

This is tricky question for a couple of reasons. First of all, saying "renewable" is a much broader term than nuclear because there are many different types of renewable energy such as solar, wind, and water.

Let's break it down like this...

Nuclear "Pros"

-We have gotten the process of a nuclear reactor to be very safe, and only under a few rare circumstances have there been accidents.

-It produces much more energy in a much smaller space and is generally cheaper way than most renewable sources.

Renewable "Pros"

-Mining and Transportation of the nuclear materials are expensive, environmentally harmful, and dangerous processes. Keep in mind that all the reactive material must be moved from the initial mine site to the reaction site and then taken someone where else for disposal. This promotes a use of fossil fuels anyways (so we're only sort of solving the problem) because fossil fuels are expensive, they depletes our supply, and they produce greenhouse gases when burned.

-There is only so much uranium (and other viable nuclear reactive sources) in the world. Eventually we are going to deplete our supply. It would be much better to establish a long lasting system on something that we predict will last much longer such as wind or the sun.

-Although the process of the nuclear reactor has become so well managed that it is fairly safe, the potential problems, if an accident does occur, are devastating. Basically, the risk isn't worth the benefit.

-Also, it is fairly difficult to move energy across long distances. Sure we have cable running miles, but you could never expect to get a very high percentage of energy from the west coast of the states to the east coast. The great thing about many forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is that it is possible to have many little power generating stations. Every house in a neighborhood could have one. This would maximize electricity transportation efficiency. You could never do that with nuclear power. Imagine little nuclear reactors in everyone's basement.

-Finally, if you have nuclear reactors, you have the issue of nuclear waste. Many of these wastes have a half life (amount of time it takes for half of the mass to decay) of around 1000 years. This means we will be stuck with all of the nuclear waste for along time. Although we say we can put it in a safe place where it won't be dangerous to people, I find it hard to believe that we can predict where that will consistently be for next thousand years. (Even then, only half of it will be gone.) Think about what was going on 1000 years ago. No one would have predicted a future even slightly similar to the one in which we are currently living.

In the end, I would have to say that renewable sources have my vote and I am happy that the Italian Government is pursuing those as opposed to nuclear energy. My belief is that nuclear energy is on it's way out - not in.

Answer 4

renewable will never run out and it will protect you country by not spreading chemicals into the air!

i say protect ITALY, PROTECT EARTH AND USE RENEWABLE!

Answer 5

Uranium is a finite fuel (non renewable) and its cost is increasing. I don´t even mention the problems of nuclear proliferation.

Comissioning/construction of nuclear power plants: 10 years

Lifetime: 40-60 years

Liability of nuclear waste to operators has made it unattractive.

Nuclear produces large heavy-metal pollution for the uranium enrichment.

Nuclear has the same CO2 intensity as combined cycle gas turbines when looked over the whole lifecycle. As such it compars poorly to renewables.

In 5 to 10 years, solar power will be at grid parity (same cost as other sources of power offered on the grid).

The output of new solar factories is projected to increase to 5GW in 5 years meaning that solar power will install the equivalent of several new nuclear power plant each year and at a lower cost.

A nuclear power plant regarding its lifetime and comissioning would if started now have its half operating time in 2038. That means that FOR SURE it will be an ECONOMIC SUBOPTIMAL OPTION WHEN COMPARED TO SOLAR.

Answer 6

Renewable.

And the green party and environmentalists oppose nuclear power for good reasons. When mining it, the miners get exposed to the radiation, and even the mutation in genes is found in their children. Mining still requires big trucks and haulers that need non-renewable fossil fuels. Besides the fact that uranium is a non-renewable source and takes millions of years to make again, the workers in the nuclear plants get more higher exposure to radiation than the average person, making insurance fees very high for the company owning the utility. For the lifecycle of the nuclear power, it isn't clean or safe. Plus, uranium and plutonium is usually shipped overseas, and planes get hijacked many times to use the raw material for nuclear weaponry.

All sources of energy has impacts on the environment. Solar and wind have less impacts than hydrodams.

Answer 7

Are we comparing a nuclear plant to a wind turbine, or solar plant?

Nuclear is on all the time.

Large scale electric means the transmission wires and generating facilities are all kept in one place on a much smaller footprint out of sight and out of mind.

You would need at least a thousand wind turbines to provide the same energy as a small nuclear plant.

Large scale electric provides cheaper power than renewable scaled plants do.

Downside of nuclear is the problem of radioactive waste.

But that is nothing compared to the materials used in the manufacture and operation of solar or wind and associated battery equipment.

Nuclear is overall a better solution than renewables.

Answer 8

Italy is too densely populated for nuclear power.  It would work here in the US, but not there.  Also, Italy has very little flat land--it's mountainous and hilly as a whole.

With your climate there, go solar. It would work out much better, and the tops of the buildings could be used for that.

Answer 9

we are going to need them all.

Answer 10

renewable.  no question

Answer 11

Italy has had four nuclear reactors, but shut down the last two when Chernobyl happened...but Italy stilll imports power generated from nuclear power plants 910%).  And Italy is considering building more.

Answer 12

Hi

Your English is very good!

You are very fortunate not to have nuclear energy in Italy.

It is grossly out of balance and making very serious problems for future generations because we are SO wasteful.

We need to seriously tackle the waste that is using up fossil fuels at such an inordinate rate and generally cut back on our energy consumption now and not live on the credit of future generations.

Perhaps Italy will lead the way!

All good wishes,

Angela V