Nuclear power not being utilized as an alternative to fossil fuel because?
it produces radioactive waste
it is expensive
it can only be used in specific environments
or all of the above
it produces radioactive waste
it is expensive
it can only be used in specific environments
or all of the above
it produces radioactive waste….yikes!
it is expensive…WHO IN DA WORLD WOULD SELL SUCH A THING??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
it can only be used in specific environments….define specific…..
either all of the above or it produces radioactive waste. : )
i think…
sure hope i help.
All of the above
that shxt sounds confuusinnggg
you forgot NIMBY
Well mainly people are afraid of it i feel. Its not nearly as expensive as fossil fuel plants at all once you get past the start up. Nuclear plants have lead to cheaper in energy in countries like France. Also there are no CO2 emissions from nuclear plants after start up, which is a big bonus to many people. Considering that coal plants alone are cause of 24% of the US carbon emissions.
All of the above and even more.
You see, the costs are being carried by future generations. In addition no company that produces the energy now will have to carry the true costs of later storage. (because it needs to be stored for more than 100.000 years and you simply cannot earn enough money for that)
The nuclear waste has to be cooled, otherwise it can just blow up (this happened in Russia)
Some of the waste is even radioactive after billions of years (depleted uranium). It’s less radioactive than Plutonium by far, but still it’s very dangerous. It’s being used for weapons by the US, but when exploding it will become extremely fine dust which poisons the environment and contaminates everything around (plants, people, animals, ground,…) and flies around the whole athmosphere till it lands in any other country.
France is poisoning the environment, throwing nuclear waste into the ocean (yea, still doing that, but after it was forbidden to do that from a ship, they simply built pipelines …. -.-) and reprocessing causes a lot of nuclear waste getting into the athmosphere either.
In close distance to nuclear power plants, the amount of leucemia is significantly higher than in other areas (especially for children).
Ah, by the way… the storage problem has not been solved yet. Building a nuclear powerplant devours a huge mass of money by the way.
Want more? There’s still more, don’t worry
(@Marcus: So you should better fight both)
No because the companies fight hard against it.
Waste is easily disposed of.
Yes it’s expensive, but if we continuously work with it, it will become more inexpensive *Imagine going to the 1400 world and asking for 1000 barrels of oil.
We have plenty of those environments.
Kthxbai
Sounds like a very biased question leading the person who answers it to believe that nuclear power is bad. Indoctrinating at it’s best…
There are two main reasons why countries don’t fully utilize nuclear power as an alternative fuel. (1) You have to deal with the nuclear waste, as someone else already stated. I’ve seen statistics that say it can take anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 years for such waste to no longer be harmful to the environment and living organisms. I also noticed someone else said that it was EASILY disposable, this is a complete lie. (2) People are afraid of having another "Chernobyl" incident. There is this huge fear that nuclear power plants are unsafe. While there are dangers to such plants personally I think it is more dangerous for us to continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate that currently do.
By the way not all countries are against using nuclear power. France gets a majority of its power from such plants I believe.
all of the above ..plus about the environments..it is not exactly great to build one near earthquake pron areas..
it can be used only in specific conditions only if it is not so it may result in another bomb blast that held in japan in 1945