I do have some concerns though...
1)
Is it costly?
2)
What do we do with the waste? How dangerous is the waste for the environment?
3)
What%26#039;s the risk of having another Three Mile Island/Chernobyl disaster?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
I%26#039;m sure the cost is outrageous but, what are the options...not many. The life of the waste is said to last 30,000 years...but, who knows, maybe someone will discover a use for the waste...or, could it be dumped somewhere like the sun...and, finally...accidents will happen...we%26#039;re human. Let%26#039;s hope the additional precautions are taken and pray for the best...One other thing...of all the inventions that have been discovered and %26quot;bought out%26quot; by competitors so that we don%26#039;t get to use them...how about making it a law that %26#039;new discoveries%26#039; MUST become available...the %26#039;old%26#039; companies that have gouged us all of these years can either invest or go the way or the %26#039;out of use%26#039; models...these companies have the monies to be on the %26#039;ground floor%26#039; of new discoveries...if they want to...it%26#039;s just time to stop the INDECENT GREED that Ronnie Reagan ushered in...NO MORE what the market will bear...or the trickle down theory...NO MORE GREED... 100% 1 Vote
Other Answers (5)
-
Don%26#039;t worry about 3 (mostly overblown)...as for the others
1...DON%26#039;T be misled by nuclear cost figures, most don%26#039;t take in consideration the enormous capital cost for construction or most don%26#039;t take in account for nuclear waste disposal which is extremely costly
2...Though it is possible to recycle the waste a couple of times, eventually the waste needs to be put to rest...for a thousand years! We human beings do NOT have that amount of foresight in our planning and one mistake could prove irreparable damage. Damage that would make a large environment uninhabitable for hundred(s) of years...
The biggest benefit of the nuclear energy is that it creates jobs...lots of jobs, that solar and other alternatives don%26#039;t provide see most are pretty automated 0% 0 Votes -
No more costly than coal fire. And it%26#039;s extremely clean. Heat is generated by splitting atoms inside the reactor boiling water to create steam, steam has pressure that turns turbines that generates electricity.
Coal fired power plants obviously %26quot;burn%26quot; coal and put off harmful emissions such as CO2, Sulfur,ect. scrubbers help but are not 100%.
There is less nuclear waste generated and generated less often. Most of the waste can be recycled into other things. Just the word %26quot;nuclear%26quot; has gotten a bad rap, but that%26#039;s the word we have to use when we talk about the nucleus of something.
The chance of another three mile island is slim. The reaction or heat produce is regulated by the fuelrods being covered and uncovered. what happened at three mile island was just that, there was a failure in being able to sheild the rods and regulate temperture and pressure.
Just remember a nuclear power plant is no more than a steam driven power generator. The fuel source to heat the water is the only difference. Heat it with nuclear fuel or by burning a fossil fuel like coal.
Extra note: The %26quot;fossil%26quot; part is the problem. Think of our environment as being a circle or a cycle, which it is. anything that is in the cycle now can be used. For an example: If we could use wood to heat the water to make steam it would still put off CO2, but that CO2 that is in the carbon cycle. Plants take in CO2 and when we burn them they release the CO2. We could keep doing that, take it up, release it, take it up, release it. Then there would not be a gain or loss in the amount of CO2 in the environment. But the problem is when we burn %26quot;fossil%26quot; fuels which have had their carbon or CO2 out of the carbon cycle for so long. That is adding carbon to the carbon cycle and not being able to be absorbed. Not because it is different but because the cycle is always full.
I hope i answered some of your questions and others. Formal training in Occupational Health and Safety 0% 0 Votes -
When people hear the word nuclear there first though is nuclear bombs, me though I think it can be the way forward.
I think someone can easily invent a device that fits into a car to run it with a nuclear power.
Everyone knows how powerful the stuff is so you wouldn%26#039;t even need much and it could last for ages.
People though will probably think it will blow up but they don%26#039;t even realize there already driving in a form of transport that could very easily blow up now. 0% 0 Votes -
Ok, here%26#039;s the skinny, and I know because I use to be a reactor operator.
For the most part, everything around us emits radiation...rocks...tree%26#039;s...etc....and this is referred to as %26#039;background radiation%26quot;. And its important because during a radiological event, they measure for accuracy purposes the radiation %26quot;above background%26quot; so they know how much is abnormal.
Next....the water that eventually gets radiated in the core is contained in a closed loop. Meaning that it is recycled again and again over and over in and out of the reactor core. It doesn%26#039;t go anywhere. It merely tranfers the heat from the reactor core to the steam generators ...where it cools down by making steam ...then returns to the core again.
Chernobyl couldn%26#039;t happen in America because the reactor in Russia was a liquid sodium reactor type and we don%26#039;t use those kind. The explotion in Russia wiped out whole areas (in the shape of an %26#039;L%26#039; interesting enough) but 3 mile island was merely release of potentially radioactive steam.
Any leak in a reactor isn%26#039;t good, but 3 mile island was a relatively minor incident.
The chances of an accident is about as likely to be predicted as when the next time you get into a car wreck...if ever. There are tight standards on welding and components for a nuclear system.
If any accident did happen, it would be in the form of stream escape or water leakage for which there are emergency proceedures. We all have to wear contamination suits, get out the radiacs and secure areas until they are clearned up.
Any water released from a plant has to meet a standard set by authorities for %26quot;Minimum discernable activity%26quot;. so as not to pollute the enviroment. The main waste products are expended control rods. Think of a reactor as a metal wall with the sun always shining on it. Fission is always occuring, and without control rods it would heat the water all the time, but control rods would be like putting up a shade umbrella so that the sun doesn%26#039;t hit the wall all the time. Sun hits the wall, it gets hot, wall gets shaded, it starts to cool down.
The control rods are absorbing the engergy instead of the water, so the reactor might be %26quot;shut down%26quot; for all practical purposes, but its always producting in truth.