advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power as a source of energy in Botswana?
339908
A nuclear plant is efficient and very clean. They probably dont cost that much more than any other sort of plant. The disadvantages are straight forward, if anything goes wrong then they go very wrong.
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.
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.
184689
I like the subject of how environmentalists are hurting the environment by boycotting nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the cleanest way to produce electricity. I think they should build the plants underground. This would minimize damage if it were to go to meltdown.\n\nThe worst part of nuclear energy is the fact that if the country has nuclear energy, they have the means to produce a nuclear bomb. So we wouldn't want rouge states to use it.
127233
Time will tell this, and accordingly those circumstances would be leading us to different solutions.\n-Recycled usage if possible could be made, in power generation.\n-Highly protected sealed container buried under sea bed.\n-Sending them stray in the outer space.\n-There are possiblities that some poverty ridden country would be subjected to menacing radioactive materials in order to create battle fields of future (the way human rights are being violated these days).
385600
I love nuclear power - Chernobyl was run by a bunch of resentful communists - with very little grasp of anything technological - now they have 2 heads and 12 fingers to show for it!
410938
Powering boats like aircraft carriers and submarines.\n\nProducing radioactives for medical uses like Technesium99 which is injected into patients to do bone scans.\n\nPossibly used as a starter system for nuclear fission reactors (though this is a theory that has been around for decades and still hasn't happened) \n\nReally Big Bombs.
423132
It all depends on the area where you live. Like people in Florida would benefit most from Solar energy. People living near dams would benefit more form water energy. Wind energy would benefit people who live in the mountains. It all has to do with the geography of the land. But dealing with fuel options... I'm stumped!
585929
If it were not for concerns about the health effects of\nradiation, nuclear energy would have developed quite\ndifferently.\nRadiation is not new. Although it was discovered and\nnamed as recently as 1896, we and our ancestors have\nlived with it since the beginning of time. The earth is\nnaturally radioactive, so is the air we breathe, the\nfood we eat and the ground we stand on. It is only\nwhen we are subjected to relatively large doses of\nradiation that it becomes a danger to life or health.\nModern science has allowed us to develop safe ways\nof using radiation, and of exploiting its properties for\nthe benefit of mankind. Many valuable applications\nhave been developed:\n􀁺 nuclear medicine, especially the use of X-rays\n􀁺 use of radiation to develop drugs for people with\ndiabetes, arthritis or high blood pressure\ntreatment of car tyres with radioactive materials to\nmake them more durable and puncture-resistant\nradioactive sources in photocopiers to stop the\npaper sticking together.\nThese are just a few examples. We benefit from a\nlarge range of products and services made possible by\nradioactive materials, often without even realising it.\nEverything in the world, from the air we breathe to\nthe cars we drive, is made up of atoms\nSome atoms are ‘stable’ – an ordinary carbon atom,\nwith six protons and six neutrons, will stay that way\nuntil the end of the universe unless something\ndramatic happens to it, such as being absorbed by the\nsun. Others are unstable – for example, their nuclei\nmay be too big to hold together – so they shake off\nparticles and surplus energy from their nucleus until\nthey become stable. The process of shaking off these\nparticles and energy is called ‘radioactivity’, and the\nparticles and energy which are released are known as\n‘nuclear radiation’. The process is often called\n‘radioactive decay’, since over time the radioactive\nmaterial breaks up and changes into other more stable\natoms, sometimes through several radioactive\nintermediate stages. The process can take fractions of\na second or billions of years depending on the\nradioactive material involved, but in each case the\nradioactivity of the material falls steadily.\nThere are different types of radiation, and not all\ninvolve radioactive decay. The type of radiation we\nare looking at in this booklet is ‘ionising radiation’,\nand includes artificially made X-rays (which do not\narise from radioactive decay). When this type of\nradiation bumps into other matter, it produces\nelectrically charged particles, known as ‘ions’.\nIonisation causes chemical changes in materials, and\ncan affect our bodies as well as the things around us.\nIn high quantities, ionising radiation can damage\nliving tissue and even destroy human cells. This can\nbe beneficial in some circumstances – for example,\nradiotherapy is used in the treatment of cancer, the\nradiation being used to kill cancerous cells, leaving\nother cells nearby relatively unharmed. In this sense,\nradiation is rather like a surgeon’s scalpel. Usedcarefully it can provide many benefits and can enable\nus to live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives,\nalthough it can be dangerous if misused.\nWhen we refer elsewhere in this booklet to ‘radiation’\nwe mean ionising radiation. However, there are nonionising\nradiations, such as low energy\nelectromagnetic radiation (which includes light, infrared,\nradio waves and electrical and magnetic fields\nfrom power pylons), which are not normally\ndangerous.\nThere are several types of ionising radiation, of which\nthe most important are:\n􀁺 α (alpha): streams of atomic particles (helium\nnuclei) made up of two protons and two neutrons\nwith a positive charge (+2). By atomic standards\nthese are quite big chunks of matter, so they are\nvery easily stopped. They cannot pass through\npaper, for example, or through the dead outer layer\nof our skin. However, if materials emitting alpha
212620
the disadvantages of natural gas is that it is expensive for the power stations to buy it. therefore they may not be able to reach the demand for electricity and will have to use alternate energy resources.
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.
590697
>> The Earth has limited supplies of coal and oil. Atomic power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce. \n>> Atomic 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. \n>> Coal and oil burning plants pollute the air. Well-operated atomic power plants do not release contaminants into the environment.
78131
Right now there isn't much. The idea of nuclear power for spacecraft isn't too attractive, given the radiation, fallout, and potential mess after an accident. \n\nThe old chemical rockets have experienced an upgrade recently, thanks to the Russian technology of the closed cycle motor. The energy used to run the pumps used to be jettisoned outside the motor bell, but the Russians needed that extra bit of power for their N1 moon ship, and designed the NK33 closed cycle motor. Thankfully, some of the motors survived the cold war, and ended up in the hands of researchers who used them to construct the closed cycle motors that power the Atlas 5. The New Horizons spacecraft rode out on the Atlas 5, which was the fastest launch in history. The Apollo ships took three days to cover the distance between Earth and Moon; New Horizons did it in 9 hours. That's an improvement.
826238
Radiation therapy is often used to treat cancer.  Nuclear energy also produces much power.
589939
On whether a country should have more nuclear power stations, or at least that is what the debate in UK is.\n\nFor:\n- Using nuclear reactor to generate electricity does not produce carbon dioxide like other methods.\n\n- Is extrememly efficient as it uses a very small amount of natural resources (uranium) and quite cheap in the long run.\n\nAgainst:\n- Where to put the waste?  At the moment no solution has been found.\n\n- There is the fear of meltdown and disaster, and as such few people want to live near a nuclear power plant.
105865
Solar energy is available in a large quantity, in fact much larger than all other safe energy sources put together. Energy obtained from coal, petroleum, other carbon based products and that obtained from nuclear fusion/fission is not safe for the enviornment.\nSo Solar energy has two major advantages -\n1. Abundant, hence making it cheap.\n2. Environmental friendly.
1096808
Check the Suzlon Business case.. as they have set it up in Gujarat. \nYou will need a lot of ivestment and will have to come up with a concrete plan as to location, cost, generation capacity, investros, and most important this report has to be submitted to the ministry of energy in India :-) \n\nSmile always