What is wrong with nuclear energy?

Question

Why is the Australian government thinking this is a sustainable way forward?

Answer 1

Nuclear energy is better than coal.

Contrary to what most people expect, coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium.

When coal is burned the radioctive Uranium  and Thorium is concentrated in the ash and is released to the environment in the ash that goes up the smoke stack and also in the hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash that  are often left lying on the ground.

The Uranium in the coal ash breaks down and produces radioactive Radon gas that is released to the atmosphere.

We have far more radiocative pollution and waste released to the atmosphere every year from coal burning to produce electricity than we do from nuclear power plants.

Coal burning even produces more radioactive waste that is released to the enironment than was released by the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl combined.

However wind power does not have any of those drawbacks and is unusual for a renewable energy source in that it does not cost any more to produce electricity by wind power than it does to produce electricity by coal and nuclear power.

My first recommendation is to produce electricity by wind power.

The second recommendation that I have is to use nuclear power when wind power is not practical.

My third recommendation is that because of the pollution problems with coal, we should replace coal burning power plants with nuclear power plants if we cannot replace the generating capacity with wind power.



The bottom line is that nuclear power is much safer and causes much less radioactive pollution than burning coal.

If the choice is between coal power and nuclear power we should go with nuclear power.

Answer 2

Nuclear power might be part of the solution to our energy issues, but what we do with nuclear waste is one factor that needs thorough examination.  Cancer related to nuclear waste, especially in Los Alamos, New Mexico, is one major concern (see the second sited webpage below.  Exactly where this waste is to be dumped and who says are extremely sensitive issues.  I don't know about you, but I for one do not want the waste dumped in my backyard, or in a canyon near my house, or...well, you get the idea.  For those who flippantly say, "Yeah, any moran can see that nuclear will solve all of our problems," I'd like to ask you, can they dump this stuff near your town?  Let's think before we jump to rash solutions.

Answer 3

Absolutely nothing is wrong with nuclear energy!! It only becomes bad if it is used as an adjective to describe bomb. One of America's big sources of energy, coal, kills thousands of people per year and pollutes the earth horribly. Chernobyl was a horrible thing, but safety measures have increased ten fold since then. A very slim chance exists for something to go wrong. There is even less of a chance for after something goes wrong for it effect any one. Everyone looks at the long island incident as why we should not have it. Guess how many people died from it...NONE!

Nuclear power is cheaper, safer, more efficient, and better for our envrionment then our other options (solar too expensive, wind and water inefficient). So, until we develop those sources (decades away) we need to use Nuclear power.

70% of France uses Nuclear power and few European countries have the negative mentality towards nuclear energy America has. If Australia is looking at Nuclear energy then good for them!!!

Answer 4

it is an effecient way to produce energy, but it is very dangerous. if some kind of explosion were to take place (again) or nueclear fumes leaked out, it would be devastating and have many long term effects. it burnse cleaner and everything, but it is very dangerous

Answer 5

Australia has the biggest Uranium mines on the planet, why not ?, they can even dump the waste back into the mines since they were already radioactive to begin with

Answer 6

It has some risks, but they are way less than the risks of global warming.

We can build nuclear plants that are safe and safe from terrorist attacks.  We're good at doing things like that.

We know how to bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to choose a site.

Nuclear is one of the excellent tools for fighting global warming.

Answer 7

Well it's the waste that's wrong, nuclear waste takes millions of years to be safe, soo many things can happen in a millions years you can imagen all the posibilities of dessasters to come.

In the event of a nuclear desaster, all the energy produced since the first day of the atomic age will mean nothing.

A global nuclear desaster can bring the human rave and posibly all other life forms to extinction.

Well at least you can proudly say roaches will survive if you can see further up the road.

If you ask a roach that question, he'll probably say thairs nothing wrong with nuclear energy nor the waste created by it, hmmmm... it'll be like living in "Joes' Apartment" every where.

The energy of the sun, and energy in lighting bolts is enough to fuel our needs without the danger that nuclear reactors pose.

Was Chernoble a warning sign of whats to come?

Answer 8

Mostly the waste and the volatility. Until the radiation concern and disposal of the waste can be addressed nuclear energy is a far way from a good option.

Answer 9

Nuclear waste is the problem, there is no plan in place for long-term storage, and it generates huge amounts of heat for thousands of years. Also, consider the carbon footprint of the construction of a nuclear power plant, the number of diesel-engine hours for the whole process is almost beyond calculation. Nuclear power plants are the most expensive method ever devised for boiling water, and their primary purpose is to provide plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Answer 10

There is nothing wrong with Nuclear energy.  We have had ONE accident in all of these years.  It was contained.  The plant in Russia was not built well to begin with.  We need more Nuclear energy plants, not less.

Answer 11

it's dangerous stAY AWAY FROM THEM!!!!!!!!

Answer 12

It works very good as long as u don't have an accident. They have tried to make them Idiot proof but they can still have problems.

Answer 13

I am very suprised at people's reactions.  I have seen much more resistance to nuclear energy in the past than I've seen in the answerers here.

There are three recurring problems with nuclear energy:

1. The process of mining the ore itself has potential health implications

2. Examples llike Chernobyl demonstrate that poor design and administration can cause disasters, and

3. Containing the nuclear waste for thousands of millenia.

There is one HUGE appeal to nuclear energy:

The density of the energy in the fuel.  E=mc^2 is a VERY "powerFULL" equation!  *Pun intended*

There is one big advantage for Australia:

Australia has 30% of all the uranium deposits in the world!

Tony Blair was just here looking at our CANDU technology as a potential design choice ... the safest, but most expensive, form of nuclear generating technology.  Some of the advantages, like online refuelling at full power, offsets the cost by increasing capacity factor.  But one big problem that proves the stupidity of governments: we have no way of making more heavy water, they demolished the only operating heavy water plant in Canada about 10 years ago.  Hard to sell something you don't have.

So, yes, nuclear has problems, too, in the hazard management as well as in the administration and economics.  But we have managed them both better than we have managed fossil fuels.  

For example: it has been anecdotal for years that if gas tanks on cars were designed to the same standards as packaging for radioactive materials, your gas tank would be a trailer!

Hope that helped.

Answer 14

Well yes

Nuclear power does show promise in reducing green house gases. Nuclear power is not sustainable, it is only a short term solution. Uranium will not supply our energy needs indefinitely. It is not easily renewed.

The biggest hassle is that due to certain international political activities over the last few years, our world is just not politically stable enough to expand the use of nuclear power.

Let's say Australia and other countries where to suddenly start building heaps of nuclear power stations using environmentalism as the reason. There are certain other countries, in this world that are going to stick up their hands and say "yes us too". What arguments are there for "no not you"? With our track record internationally (Iraq wheat board bribes) Are you going to trust that this stuff is not going to be sold to countries that will give it back. (with a bang). Ever heard of "pig iron bob"

Lets face it, if some countries were to get their hands on nuclear power or even just some of the waste, Global warming would no longer be the number one threat to life on this planet.

There is a cost problem as well. The largest cost for nuclear power generation is the cost of decommissioning the power station when it comes to the end of its service life. This is conveniently overlooked in most costing exercises. The cost of storing waste is underestimated. Given our political climate waste disposal needs to be quite high security. If not every other time you bend over someone will drop radioactive waste down your bum crack.  I’m not 100 % opposed to nuclear power but I really think that this is the worst time in our history to greatly expand it.

The most promising alternative is clean burn coal technology there a several trials in process at the moment. This technology should provide a way to retrofit existing coal fired plant to make them emit virtually no gases at all.

Here is an example that is in underway in Queensland at present.

http://www.csenergy.com.au/research_and_...

There are also promising alternatives in Geothermic (Hot dry rock)

http://www.nedo.go.jp/enetai/chinetsu/hd...

Sliver solar cells

http://solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/pubs/pap...

Dyesol solar

http://www.dyesol.com/index.php?page=How...

Answer 15

Google 3 Mile Island. Then Google Chernobyl.

Answer 16

All large-scale methods of generating power have risks and dangers to the environment.  The nuclear industry is not without those problems, but it has learned a lot from past mistakes.  Many groups that used to be anti-nuke have decided that it isn't as dangerous as they used to believe.

Do a search on "nuclear power strange bedfellows" to read some articles about some of these new alliances.

Answer 17

Essentially, the same people that are against carbon fuels are the ones that were against nuclear energy.  They were/ are leftist alarmist.  They made it nearly impossible for the nuclear power industry to create additional power plants through scare tactics and exaggeration.  They continue their tactics today.  Nuclear should have a major role to play in our power generation.

Answer 18

It has a bad reputation because of its association with nuclear weapons, and because the public fears radioactive waste more than non-radioactive toxic waste, and because of the fear of future accidents like Chernobyl.

But a nuclear power plant can produce a lot of energy without releasing any CO2.

Answer 19

Nuclear energy works great. It heats the water to make steam. The steam turns the turbine and spins a generator to make electricity. Simple. No co2. No green house gases.

Mining the uranium is not included in that neat little process. Nor is machining the uranium and the waste from that. Then the spent uranium is reused to make more steam. Brilliant.

When you can not use any more of the radioactive material, it gets buried. Where? In the old uranium mine? That would work if you are not mining it still. That brings to mind how dangerous the mining part of the equation is again. If you can't bury it in the old mine what do you do with it? dig your own hole and line it with concrete and hope that it is safe for the eons that it lays under ground.

The day to day working with radioactive material is not your safest job. " I hope that when my son grows up he can handle radioactive waste every day." is a phrase that is rarely heard at the dinner table.

I don't get it. Don't you guys google radioactive waste before you speak your opinions? You claim to not want the long lasting effects of the green house gases but you are fine with the even longer lasting effects of radioactive waste in your life? Talk about poison.

India is investing in large scale wind farms to generate electricity so they can desalinate sea water.

SoCal Edison has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in  solar powered Sterling engine driven generators.

Two forms of clean, green energy that has no toxic waste to deal with for eons.

Answer 20

Nuclear energy seems to be the only practical alternative to generating electricity from fossil fuels.  There are negatives, but everything has negatives.

Answer 21

Only the radioactive material left when the plutonium can not produce power. Where do you store something that can kill people which have a half life of hundreds years. I know I have ask a question but that is the answer. Another thing almost nowhere in the world can you build without being near earthquakes areas.

Answer 22

The US Navy and France certainly use a lot of it without releasing radiation.  Even Russia has its act together, notice how they lost the submarine Kursk and its entire crew, but the reactor was intact when they raised it from bottom of the Baltic Sea.