what is better carbon-based energy, or nuclear energy?
116117
Depends on what you mean by better.  I would say neither actually, because they both produce dangerous waste products.  Nuclear breeder reactors are probably the safest way to produce energy (limiting myself to the two choices you provided) since there are no dangerous byproducts.  Unfortunately, both of these energy forms are from limited resources (as far as we know).  I think we should be tapping into wind and solar (particularly) more than rather finite, polluting energy sources.  Hell, why not build solar fields on the opposite side of the moon and beam the energy via satellites and microwaves?  Oh well, what do I know?
197817
To answer your primary question, it just needs to be less expensive than fossil fuels...oil in particular.\n\n1.  Very few "direct" renewable sources are available non-stop.  A few would be tidal power, geothermal power and hydroelectric power.  There are many "indirect" sources, such as biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, methane) which are the process of extracting energy from materials.\n\n2. Nothing is really practical (at this point) to compete.  Oil is still too cheap.\n\n3. Storage either in liquid fuel form or conversion to electricity offers the two easiest ways to move large amounts of energy.\n\n4. There's many viable technologies available today, but they are under continuous refinement to make them better, more efficient, less costy, and ultimately, more competitive\n\n5. This one is always fun.  Wind and hydroelectric don't pollute, but one is blamed for killing migratory birds and the other is hated for destroying habitats surrounding rivers.  Both offer the most promise as the next best source of energy compared to fossil fuels.\n\n6. Well, this depends on whether the consumer is in an energy rich or energy poor area.  If you live in an area where there's ample sun, good wind, and/or rivers you can dam up, then you're living close to where you can produce it.  If you can't produce enough energy from the sources immediately available to you, then you will either need to conserve more or import it.\n\n7. Politicians are likely only going to back solutions that prove to be overwhelmingly beneficial to their constituents.  You will get corn belt pols that back ethanol for the obvious positive economic impact that it will have on their areas.   Likewise, wind in areas that it could prove beneficial.\n\nThere is no one magic bullet for every energy need, that needs to be understood.  Some sources will win over others, based on the application and its availability.  But until oil gets more expensive (like over $100 per barrel) then most alternative sources just simply can't economically compete with today's renewable harnessing technology.
480841
both r developing contries.......both has enormous potential in the realm of energy.it's high time to put aside the differences and get moving.........
428972
Alternate energy sources are our next step to stabilize our economy and lessen the dependence on other countries to provide us that need. However, they are extremely costly and hard to come by. Wind mills are a disaster in terms of the amount of space it needs to operate. Solar panels are not effecient everywhere, say Seattle or Alaska. Nuclear fission is the next step but since it is potentially dangerous as nuclear bombs, it's being closely monitored thus dampening the research process. I guess we are still depended on oil is because it is so universal and exremely easy to use and harness everywhere. I agree with you, if I had enough money to fund researches like these, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
390926
at first we should check the exceesive use of fossil fuel . then we should try to find an alternative fuel such as cng gas nuclear reactors . it may take some time but if we preserve our fossil fuel for as long as we can then the scientists could get enough time for the alternative .
757571
i got carbon and its pretty good dont have most wanted yet so i cant compare but carbons at least worth the money .
208864
Here is a little information about Nuclear Energy:\nhttp://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/nuclear.htm
636084
The main benefit is that it produces huge amounts of energy for a smaller mass of fuel than many power sources, while not polluting the environment as badly.\nRisks include the left over waste fuel is radioactive and dangerous to all life for Millions of years until it comletes its transformation into lead. That and when the blow they BLOW taking out miles of land and releasing radiation clouds that travel with the wind. As a side note the French Nucleur power plants are mainly on the north shore facing england. If they blue the mainly northern winds would force radiation clouds over britain not france. Chenobyl is the best example of a nucleur accident and is still of limits after many many years, due to lingering radiation being deadly.
548851
Some pros to this energy source are: 1) Vast new source of energy 2) Fuels (mostly hydrogen) are plentiful 3) Inherently safe since a malfunction results in a rapid shutdown 4) No atmospheric pollution leading to acid rain or "greenhouse" effect 5) Radioactivity of the reactor structure, caused by neutrons, decays rapidly and can be minimized by careful selection of low-activation materials. There is basically only one con to these energy sources though. Scientists have not figured out a way to make it efficiently. At this point they have sustained a reaction at the break-even point, which essentially means they used as much energy as they created to make the reaction take place.
286371
atomic energy refers to the energy which is stored in an atom of any element while nuclear energy refers to the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom of an element. thus we can say tat both these r same since the energy of an atom is ultimately derived from its nucleus.\nthese enrgies r much useful in generating cheaper electricity. also this is the same energy thru which energy is generated in THE SUN whic is the ultimate source of all energies.
411147
Definitely France. They get 76% of their electricity from nuclear generators.
1185253
One of the realities of the energy debate is that it really does take a portfolio of technologies.  Nuclear clearly has a part to play, as does wind, solar and other renewables.  Coal certainly isn't going away anytime soon either.  \nThere simply aren't enough resources to cost effectively build just one kind of power generation plant for all the world's needs.\nthe National Renewable Energy Laboratory has some great discussions about this if you're interested enough to find them.
387321
We = U.S.?  Yes, "we" should.  The electricity demand is going to rise significantly over the next several decades - we could build hundred of cola/gas fired plants, removing it from car/truck consumption and from plastics and other industries feedstock OR a couple of baseload nuclear plants.  The new ones are passively safe and generate no greenhouse gases, or other toxic emissions unlike fossil fuel plants that create tons (including releasing radioactivity).  There is the spent fuel issue - however, if the US could get the geologic repository licensed and operating, or recycle the spent fuel, we'd be a lot better off.  Here's an informed site with benefits: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=106
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.
601243
Nuclear, beyond any shadow of a doubt. \n\nThe US has appreciable Uranium reserves itself, and major Uranium producing nations such as Australia are already favored trading partners and stable western democracies.\n\nForget corn. It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the ethanol replaces. I. other words using corn for energy means we have to use MORE oil. We currently produce corn ethanol as an economic subsidy for corn growers. If we didn't make ethanol we would have to dump that corn in the ocean. But Corn ethanol is NOT a fuel source. See the first article below.\n\nHydrogen is iffy. We can only obtain hydrogen by splitting water using massive amounts of electricity. That electricity has to be obtained using normal power stations, usually coal. As a result hydrogen is like ethanol: it takes far more fossil fuel to produce than it actually replaces. That makes it a possible oil substitute but very unwise WRT greenhouse gas emissions unless coupled with lots of nuclear power stations.\n\nSolar and wind are never going to be major players. There simply isn't enough land available to make more than a minor contribution and because the supplies are erratic we would still need other power stations to make up the regular shortfalls. See the second article below.\n\nNucelar is the only real solution.
460294
Depends on what for.  Nuclear fission is great for generating electricity.  Biodiesel has lots of promise as a motor vehicle fuel (not to mention would be great for the US Agriculture industry).  Solar power can greatly reduce the amount of power individual homeowners have to purchase from larger providers (but the initial investemnt is expensive).  Probably a combination of Fossil Fuel alternatives would be better than adopting a single alternative replacement.
142694
Advantages:\n\nFuel is cheap. Unlike other types of electricity generation only a tiny proportion of the cost of generating nuclear power is in the actual fuel burned. \n\n\nFuel is very easy and cheap to transport. A coal or gas power station will burn tonnes of fuel every day. A nuclear power station will burn only a few grams. Because so little fuel need sot trannsported the amount of auilliary grenhouse gas pollution form transport is almost nil, as opposed to thousands of tonnes a year from coal or gas transport.\n\nSafe. Coal or gas power is a highly dangerous way to generate gas. In the US alone dozens of people are killed each year mining and transporting coal and gas for power generation and hundreds more die as a result of the pollutants these stations produce. If the same amount of power were generated using nuclear stations fewer than 10 people would die. \n\nAccidents in nuclear power generation is also far less likely to result in a loss of life. Chernobyl was the worst accident ever in the history of nuclear power generation and killed less than 50 people. There have been numerus mine accidents in the US that have killed more than 10 people at a time.\n\nUnder safety I will also include the very low levels of radioactivity released. In the US alone around 10 people a years are killed by radioactive materials released by coal power stations. Nobody in the US has ever been killed by radioactive material from nuclear power stations. Fewer than 100 people have been killed by the radioactive material released by nuclear power stations in the last 50 years in the entire world. \n\n\nNon-polluting. Aside from making nuclear power generation very safe the almost total lack of unintentional pollutants is a major environmental bonus for nuclear power. Nuclear power stations contribute just 1/100, 000th of the amount of greenhouse gas as a coal or gas plant generating the same power.\n \nAbundant fuel. The world has about enough liquid rude oil to practically last about another 100 years at current consumption and extraction rates. Coal will see us through another 400 years if we sue it as an oil supplement. We have sufficient fissionable material available to provide 10, 000 years of nuclear power even if we abandon coal and oil altogether and get ALL our energy from nuclear power.\n\n\nDisadvantages\n\nWaste disposal. This is the biggest problem. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive material that takes thousands of years or longer to become safe. Until it does decay to a safe level it has to be stored where it can’t contaminate the water supply or stolen by people who want to use it as a poison. That requires either the construction of expensive containment facilities or the permanent lockdown of decommissioned stations so the material can be stored on site.\n\nStations are relatively expensive to build. Due to pressure from environmental lobby groups nuclear power stations are more heavily regulated than any other industry, far more heavily regulated than coal power stations or even coal mines and far more heavily indicated than the statistical danger warrants. IN addition any proposed nuclear power station will be the target of protests, endless legal challenges and direct acts of sabotage from ‘environmentalists’. Those factors make it far more expensive to build a nuclear power station in the US than to build a coal or gas station.\n\nPortability. Nuclear power requires nuclear reactors, big nuclear reactors. That means they are restricted to use in large ocean going vessels, trains and as stationary electrical generators. You can’t use nuclear power to directly power cars, trucks, and airplanes. That means that nuclear power can never directly replace a large amount of US fossil fuel use. The issue of portability can be offset somewhat by using nuclear electricity to convert plant material or even air and water into petroleum, but doings o is fairly expensive.