what are the effect and advantages of nuclear energy?
109587
France has proven by its use of nuclear power safely over the past40 years (70% of France's electricity is nuclear generated) that Lt Gen is a reactionary who doesn't know what he is talking about.\n\nChernobyl was a dinosaur of a plant that only a dying country like The Soviet Union would have dared to continue (made of graphite, i.e. charcoal) it was a disaster waiting to burn - no other country ever used graphite because of its hazards.\n\nThree Mile Island was caused by one minimally educated employee who over-rode all the safety devices and forced the reactor to continue running when the reactor itself was trying to shut down. Eliminating manual operations, and requiring automatic shutdown, will cure 99.999% of all hazards. Only individual men can create complete disasters, so take the controls out of the hands of individuals.\n\nNuclear waste can safely be buried 1000's of feet deep in salt caves in our western states.
768113
Uranium is an element and does not have any pros and cons.\n\nHowever, the USE of uranium as a power supply, which is what I think you mean, has benefits and problems.\n\nBenefits -\nCheap, cleaner than fossil fuels, long-lasting\nProblems - \nRadioactive forever, highly toxic/poisonous, must refine it to use it, where do you dispose of it?, "not in my back yard" syndrome for location of nuclear plants
668346
They prevent pollution from oil and other fossil fuels, and thus help reduce CO2. \nBut they also pose the problem of radioactive waste that we have to get rid of properly. I don't think that there is any radiation outside the plant, unless it explodes, which is very unlikely, but possible. In that case a lot of land around it will be uninhabitable for like 500 years or so (I am guessing according to the half life or Uranium). I am NOT making this up it happened in Russian many years ago. Can't remember the date or place but it did and wasn't good.
167574
Solar energy is a success story. It already supplies electricity to several hundred thousand people around the world, provides employment for over ten thousand and generates business worth more than $1 billion dollars. In the future, the pace of change and progress could be even more rapid as the solar industry unlocks its hidden promise.\n\nThe benefits of solar power are compelling: environmental protection, economic growth, job creation, diversity of fuel supply and rapid deployment, as well as the global potential for technology transfer and innovation.\n\nThe underlying advantage of solar energy is that the fuel is free, abundant and inexhaustible. The total amount of energy irradiated from the sun to the earth’s surface is enough to provide more than 10,000 times the annual global energy consumption. Yet these benefits remain largely untapped; most energy decisions taken today overlook solar power as a modular technology which can be rapidly deployed to generate electricity close to the point of consumption. Phasing in solar photovoltaics therefore requires a shift from centralised to decentralised power production, offering far greater control to individual consumers.
125399
Technology is certainly going to help - for example, there are tests now of fusion power (this doesn't generate as much dangerous radioactive waste that current fission-based nuclear reactors do). But this won't be enough by itself - people need to learn to use less energy, because if we don't reduce the need, there will be a crisis. "Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)"
306016
Radiation hazards aside the greatest cost is the maintenance required of the nuclear waste and the eventual decommisioning of the powerplant.\n\nIn the medium term the cost to serve is not that much greater than other fuels, and it's the established Carbon neutral method of generating power.  It's just that the maintenance of it extends for 100's of years after it has served it's purpose.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
6409
Yes, bombard it with neutrons and it will release energy...\n\nWill it be efficient.. NO. but you can do so.
799696
the positive effects: the positive side is that you can produce  energy (electrical or heat) for a much lower cost than by using fossil fuels such as coal or oil. and unlike oil, the US isn't subject to an economic embargo or restriction by other nations on the fuel source.\n\nthe negative effects include a special type of pollution problem in dealing with the spent fuel assemblies and contaminated facilities, limited areas where you can erect reactors due to earthquakes, and the abuse  of of plutonium produced by the reactor for weapons.
964687
renewable - Wind power - cheap, available, enviromentally friendly & does not run out. Disadvantage - has to be windy/exposed, initial cost of setting up, can be considered unsightly\nTidal - Cheap, enviromentally friendly, available around the world & does not run out. Disadvantage - cost of setting up, small return for initial investment, suitable locations\nSolar - available, enviromentally friendly, relatively cheap after installation. Disadvantages - Cost of setting up, sunny location needed, storing power\nNon Renewable - Nuclear - reliable, clean, economic. Disadvantage - enviromental hazard, safety, disposal of waste\nFossil fuel Coal & gas - widely available, relatively cheap, established technology. Disadvantage - limited source, carbon emmissions, price can fluctuate
398957
Methinks.  Everything has a drawback no matter what - even wind and solar do.  Radioactivity is not caused by humans - the stuff came from the ground in the first place all we are doing in concentrating it.  The waste is a problem - yes - but Japan has had breeder reactors for years which not only eat up the plutonium which used to be waste but create even more energy in the process.  \nThe US currently uses 17 million barrels a day of crude.  The world uses about 84 million barrels.  Estimates of reserves vary widely - anywhere from 600 billion to 10 trillion barrels, which would last between 20 and 300 years at the rate we are using it, and we have probably 500 years worth of coal in the ground too, but it can't last forever.
118189
Nuclear power is a 'clean' power in that, under normal circumstances, the only emisson is steam from the reactor. However, if there is a meltdown, like the one in Russia a while ago, the effect could be very threatning.
747685
You have to learn how to do simple arithmetic, and understand simple physics like the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy.\n\nThen you will see that the effect of the biggest possible nuclear explosion on the Earth's orbit is like the effect of an insect landing on the Empire State Building.  The Earth has been pushed by radiation from solar flares with enormously more energy, hit by asteroids with enormously more momentum, than any puny little man-made nuclear explosion, and its orbit was still not affected measurably.
312445
there is not much of a difference just that atomic bombs were the first to be built they both operate the same way. nuclear energy is taking the action of a nuclear bomb and controlling it to make power. what happens is the nuclear action that a reactor has produces heat which is absorbed by water that then turns to steam and the steam is used to turn a turbine that produces electricity.
680137
To answer the first question, most power generation currently in use comes from burning things (coal, oil, gas, wood), that contain carbon in their molecular structure.  This carbon is combined with oxygen (typically from air), creating carbon dioxide, and releasing energy.  This carbon dioxide is released into the air.  Depending on the fuel source, other components and contaminants of the fuel may be burned or released as well, producing other types of pollution (such as mercury or acid rain).\n\nWith nuclear power (fission), the energy comes from a reaction contained entirely within a nuclear pile (generally made of uranium or plutonium).  Neither carbon nor oxygen needed for the process, and so CO2 is not produced.  In addition (at present), generally all of the waste products of the reaction are kept sealed and contained at special storage facilities.  While these waste products have the potential to be hazardous, because they are kept sealed, the environmental impact is greatly reduced.
1026592
EMP is a side-effect to nuclear explosions.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse\nHere is how you can build your own nuclear device.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_bomb\n\nGood luck. Just hope you are not living near me.
226918
This is a debate we're going to have to have here in the US soon...are the risks of nuclear power worth the benefits.  I think there's nothing wrong with nuke power, having worked around it for several years in the early 90's.  I think irrational fear is nuclear power's biggest obstacle.  People fear what they cannot understand.  They see Chernobyl and think that's going to happen all over again in their backyard, when the fact of the matter is that modern nuke plants are as safe as any other industrial facility handling volatile materials.  The UK would be well served by building new nukes and opening up research on alternative power sources simultaneously.