what is a problem to our environment in obtaining and using Nuclear energy?
Researching,but also:
How does it benefit us?How do we use it as an energy source?What harm are we causing Nuclear Energy by its use or obtaining it? What are 3 effects on using Nuclear Energy to the environment? What are 2 alternatives that would help in using this resource in a more productive way?What are 2 alternatives that would help protect the environment in obtaining/using Nuclear Energy?
I was wondering,my kid asked me and i was unable to answer so please answer,thanks.
I need an alternative that would help protect the environment in obtaining/using Nuclear Energy
Creo que es muy interesante
well man nuclear energy is actually pretty clean his teacher is apparently a environment nut there is nuclear waste but it is a very very small fraction of the waste of fossil fuels and other non renewable sources what happened in russia was stupidity they did not follow any saftey rules whatsoever the same will happen if we dont watch ours we have some but they only power like 2% of the nation and it will be perfectly fine one of my colleges suggested that the government would cease to give a crap about saftey for awhile which is true but nuclear facilities shouldnt be government controled but definatley supervised and have any organization take a tour and help make sure everything is safe and even if that happens there are 3 huge layers of protection if any nuclear event occured and it is very efficient the newer class of our aircraft carriers are nuclear no incidents have occured to date and it is better and cheaper than diesel and they only have to refuel once in their whole service which is expected to be about 40 years or more
Countries like France, Japan, Germany, etc. have produced a major portion of their electrical power with Nuclear for many years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of ships and submarines running on Nuclear Power and have been for over 40 years. Countries like FRANCE are producing very little CO2 because of their decision to use Nuclear Power.
We had a very good Nuclear power program going in the 60′s and 70′s in the U S. Our engineers had looked at the increasing cost of oil, and the increasing pollution of coal and spent billions testing Solar, Wind, Geo, Tidal, Etc. Etc. They came to the conclusion that Nuclear was the only alternative that would produce little pollution but supply the massive amount of power that is reliable and cost-effective we needed. Our "Environmentalists" killed our nuclear industry in the 80′s. We could have been in a position now like France and others who are not destroying our earth with CO2 and thousands of other pollutants making power, but our "Environmentalists" thought they knew better than our engineers, so here we sit and the world gets warmer. We also now are even more dependent on our enemies oil for our survival because we can’t even use the one thing we have to produce power and that is coal because it really pollutes even more.
Solar, Wind, etc. can help a little, but in no way can it even come close to providing the massive amount of cost-effective reliable 24/7 power we need to support our society. Math does not lie. Simple economic evaluation does not lie. "Environmentalists", salesmen, and politicians lie!
Yes, Nuclear does have some negatives like waste disposal and dealing with radioactive maintenance, but these negative are nothing compared to being dependent on foreign oil and destroying our planet with CO2 and other pollutants.
It can’t be at all concentrated or there will be a natural meltdown like happened in Africa a couple hundred million years ago. Large amounts of rock must be processed to make very small amounts of fuel.
Radiation is a big problem as there is no place to put spent nuclear fuels that are still radioactive for the next billions of years.
There is no need for nuclear energy. We have adequate amounts of conventional fuels that are demonstrably safer.
How fast we forget the problems at Hanford, 3 Mile Island, and Chyrnobl.
The last one has a "no mans land" around it of many miles due to radiation levels that are well above the safe limits.
Then there are the homes that had their cinder blocks made from tailings from the extraction in a number of western US states.
There are too many waste streams of radioactive materials to even be considered safe- However there is a global initiative to try get people to accept nuclear energy by trying to downplay it’s history. The one thing that remains is no nuclear plant can ever be made safer than greed allows. If corners can be cut, they will be.
Nuclear is no benefit- it is a dangerous technology, and there is no permanent repository for nuclear wastes. If there was, there would be isues of transport safety because so few first responders or law enforcement equipped for detecting the radiation, and fewer still for containing it.
One must discern the profit driven agenda of the nuclear energy propaganda from their historical track record. Right now in various places around the US are leaking temporary casks for storage, and many happen to be in watersheds feeding rivers that supply water to numerous large cities. Why add to the problem that currently exists that won’t go away with more of the same?
Make no mistake- this is a global initiative- which means it is brought to you by the same people that brought you the current economy.
All I can say is that scientists have failed to detect finer radiation that penetrates through lead and concrete containment walls resulting in the massive contamination of the environment, the atmosphere and the earth food chain.
Due to our insanities the nuclear radiation from all the nuclear power plants around the world is one other factor adding to the climate change.
All the nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities should be dismantled immediately.
Mankind has failed to take into consideration so many other dangers of nuclear energy.
We benefit less from it than the tremendous destruction caused by energy derived from nuclear processes.
We must first learn to neutralise the harmful effects of toxic radiation produced from splitting the atom before we consider using nuclear energy again.
Nuclear power on the face of power generation is the cleanest form of electrical production. The problems however, are numerous. Nuclear energy produces no carbon pollution. The basic model of a nuclear plant is the usage of fission to produce heat in a critically controlled reaction. It is very expensive to produce fuel which produces a carbon foot print. The excess heat generated (entropy) is huge. The problem of disposing of wasted fuel or reprocessing it. The very limited life of the power plant itself. Radiation make steel brittle after years. Somehow the waste cooling water must be reused instead of dumping it into the environment. Cooling towers don’t do it. It is so expensive to operate that although the electricity appears to be free in the long run it fails to compete with inexpensive fossil fuels and renewable energy generators. If the plant does fail millions of people may be hurt. Coal emissions can scrubbed the resultant sludge can be dumped into old coal mines used to produce synthetic oil or safely dumped into the ocean at certain dead locations.
I remember there is a question similar to your question asked by someone few days ago. Someone has answered it very well, and the answer has been chosen as the best answer. You can try to search it in search function above, hope you luck