Is nuclear better for the environment than coal?

- zero ghg emissions

- zero heavy metal emissions - no mercury

- cost competitive with coal (especially in other countries who don%26#039;t have as much red tape during construction of plants)

however, the US needs to make some alterations to nuclear policy for nuclear plants to become feasible again. The energy policy act of 2005 tried to address some of these concerns - in addition the US needs to switch to a closed fuel cycle (recycling) to reduce waste radiotoxicity and quantity - most nuclear nations use closed fuel cycle.

Asker's Rating:

THanks

Other Answers (8)

• Much better.
  
  We know how to engineer plants that are safe and safe from terrorism.
  
  The waste problem has been solved, it%26#039;s just a political problem to designate a site.
• Nuclear would be better compared to most coal plants. Now that is taking into account that they both be up to curent US standards.
  Also nuclear would be even better if the us would build a breeder plant. That way we could recycle the spent fuel to reuse. That way less to bury and more fuel.
• Sure, as long as there is no radiation problem, or explosion, for that matter. We have a lot of ships that run on nuclear fuel.
• the world population doubles every 35-50 years. We need sterility, not nuclear nor coal.
• yes it is!
• they both seem suspect
• The entire process of nuclear energy from mining to disposal is responsible for 75 % of the emmisions from a coal powered power station, so yes a little bit better.
  
  
  *edit*
  Sumyung Gai I think that you have not totally thought through the process and as such your comment about %26#039;back to nature%26#039; is meaningless.
• Absolutely.