Will nuclear energy save the world, or help destroy it?

Question

I keep hearing nuclear energy debates and have yet to chose a side. On one hand, it has amazing possiblities, and can take us farther in the realm of technology, especially if we learn to master a technology that is as risky as it is, but on the other hand, we would rip our world apart in searching for the uranium, and kill millions of people and animals with the waste, and factories that aren't properly secured.

Answer 1

I think most people are afraid of nuclear disasters like Chernobyl, but that was a long time ago now.  The technology in these nuke plants has gotten a lot better, so much so that in the US no one has ever died in a nuclear accident.  Compare that to how many miners lose their lives in coal mines every year.

Also, all the uranium doesn't have to be mined, some is extracted from decommissioned nuke bombs.  the US and Russia have plenty of unused nukes left over from the cold war that could be used for fuel instead of bombs.

The only problem with it is if most of the developed world goes nuclear, where they generate 80-90% of their power from it, will the utilities spend the money required to keep all of these plants safe?  That's the one thing I have doubts about.

Answer 2

As far as I can figure, a small amount of radioactive waste, which can be stored in an abandoned mine somewhere, is far less harmful than tons of CO2 emissions that effect the entire world, and the possible global warming trend it may cause.

Answer 3

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

The Earth has limited supplies of coal and oil. Nuclear power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce.

Nuclear power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels. One ton of uranium produces more energy than is produced by several million tons of coal or several million barrels of oil.

Coal and oil burning plants pollute the air. Well-operated nuclear power plants do not release contaminants into the environment.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The nations of the world now have more than enough nuclear bombs to kill every person on Earth. The two most powerful nations -- Russia and the United States -- have about 50,000 nuclear weapons between them. What if there were to be a nuclear war? What if terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons? Or what if nuclear weapons were launched by accident?

Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.

One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.

In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.

In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.

Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.

The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.

In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.

Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.

Answer 4

it depends on how we use it...john lennon used to say "you can use electricity to light a room, or kill someone"... the same applies to nuclear energy I guess...

Answer 5

i think nuclear power should be used in small amounts, it should not provide the main source of power because it is uneconomical when compared to current renewable power souses and mining yellowcake damages the environment.

Answer 6

There is no need to rip up anything looking for uranium since it shows up in virtually all natural sources of drinking water.  One estimate is that a 5 billion (5,000,000,000) year supply of it is already in solution in the worlds oceans, awaiting extraction.

Nuclear plants have been humming away producing power all over the world for 50 years now and none of the waste is getting released.  What do you make of that?

Answer 7

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

          o The Earth has limited supplies of coal and oil. Nuclear power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce.

          o Nuclear power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels. One ton of uranium produces more energy than is produced by several million tons of coal or several million barrels of oil.

          o Coal and oil burning plants pollute the air. Well-operated nuclear power plants do not release contaminants into the environment.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

      The nations of the world now have more than enough nuclear bombs to kill every person on Earth. The two most powerful nations -- Russia and the United States -- have about 50,000 nuclear weapons between them. What if there were to be a nuclear war? What if terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons? Or what if nuclear weapons were launched by accident?

          o Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.

          o One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.

                + In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.

                + In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.

          o Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.

                + The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.

                + In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.

          o Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.

Answer 8

there will be strong temptation to misuse it.

Answer 9

You have a very valid point. Nuclear energy is a two edged sword because if you go a step ahead of making fuel for power plants, you can easily have a nuclear device which can cast deadly shadows for the millions. But on the whole nuclear energy is something of a necessity as the fossil fuel reserves in the earth are fast depleting. Energy has become synonymous with development and there is no industry or home which can claim to survive without energy in some or the other form. As for the dangers of waste disposal and loss of animal life and threats to ecosystem, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has taken solid and strict measures in formulating rules and regulations for the proper and safe disposal of radioactive wastes. Those countries which produce or want to produce energy through atom are bound to sign those treaties. Regular checkup and quality assurance is kept by the IAEA and other monitoring agencies (both national and international). Searching for Uranium is no great danger as its like all other metals which we extract from earth. Hope this will help you in deciding which side to take:)

Answer 10

Major problem is operational cost and safety. In case of developed world safety is most important.

Nuclear fuel can remain hazardous for thousands of years , and as of now we dont know how to successfully remove its radioactivity in short span.

So basically we are talking about used , hazardous fuel being stored somewhere for next 1000 years before it becomes safe.

In mankinds history no nation has remained intact for such a long period. Today the western world may be rich and can afford all those checks etc can you gurantee the same after say next 200 years ? what happens if that fuel gets into wrong hands then ?

For third world countries the problem is much more severe, due to poverty , corruption , religious and ethnic divides these countries are always in some kind of strife, what if some goon decides to bribe officials and get some nuclear fuel to create havoc amongst civilians.

Plants may be safe but you cant guarantee humans especially not those who are known to be corruptible.

I would possibly keep a couple of reactors as a last resort standby option when nothing else is available but to have lots of nuclear reactors is a recipe for disastor unless you can somehow stop corruption in third world countries.

Answer 11

nuclear energy would only be ok if we could do something to counter its effects (repair) ; maybe get it from plants that get rid of their waste in an 'environment friendly' way instead of dumping it into rivers/oceans