Advantages:
Far higher fuel energy density (1-10 million times coal/oil/gas)
1 GW-year requires 3.75 million tons of coal but only about 1 tonne of U-235
Nuclear waste is highly toxic but the amount is small so full containment is practical. 1 GW-year from coal produces 8.75 million tons CO2, with little alternative but to dump it in the atmosphere.
Nuclear plants produce no NOx, SOx, CO, HC or smoke. Scrubbers have cleaned up coal plants but they're complex, expensive and consume much power. Fly ash must be stored if it can't be sold (e.g., for concrete).
Nuclear is the only non-fossil dispatchable source that can be significantly grown in the US (hydro is pretty much fully developed). Without nuclear, wind and solar beyond 30% of total generation will require either much more pumped storage (and habitat destruction) or a major battery breakthrough.
Good baseload (24/7) source, vs wind and solar and even hydro (drought years). Reactors usually shut down for refueling only every other year. Can also load-follow (e.g., in France). Only renewable source good for baseload is geothermal, which is limited.
Fast neutron (breeder) reactors mean enough uranium and thorium for many thousands of years, far more than coal (most abundant fossil fuel). No need for imports. Fast reactors also burn long-lived actinides, keeping them out of waste. The important fission products have half lives of <= 30 years, so volume of waste is much smaller and will decay much faster (to the activity of uranium ore in just a few centuries).
Disadvantages:
Very expensive and time-consuming to build, mainly politics and legal challenges and delays. Proliferation of one-off designs that run up costs.
Significant physical and computer security requirements.
Current reactors need active cooling of decay heat for several days after shutdown. Loss of power can cause core melt, H2 generation and serious explosions (Fukushima). Newer designs emphasize passive cooling.
Although major accidents and terrorist attacks are unlikely consequences could be severe, outstripping private insurance. Significant evacuations may be needed. The public and politicians don't deal rationally with low probability, high consequence accidents.
Still no agreed-on high level waste disposal -- arguably political, not technical.
US doesn't reprocess fuel due to nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. But several other countries reprocess, and our policy does nothing to inhibit the Iranians or North Koreans.
Nuclear plants are usually sited near bodies of water that can be used for cooling. This makes them potentially vulnerable to tsunamis (e.g., Fukushima), and leakage of water-soluble fission products.
Advantages:Disadvantages include the fact that nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that is quite dangerous and difficult to safely store or dispose of. And nuclear power has proved to be quite expensive. Coal is much cheaper. And nuclear power plants can have accidents that are tremendously destructive, the worst such accident being the one that happened at the Chernobyl plant. No other type of power generation presents that level of risk.
A:ProsNo Carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming.
Uranium safer to mine than coal (strip mining)
Nuclear plants need very little fuel making them less susceptible to fuel shortages or transport problems.
Uranium produces far more energy than any other fuel (other than the sun which only shines during the day) and is about as expensive as coal.
Nuclear power is very reliable.
Cons
Meltdowns are some of the worst disasters known to man where the reactor core heats up too much and melts; releasing radioactive clouds in the air. Many precautions are taken to prevent the plant from reaching this point, and does make the probability of disasters of this magnitude very unlikely, but is also very expensive.
Byproducts of this power require time away from society until they are no longer dangerous. Transportation of this deadly material is dangerous and the biggest problem faced by pro nuclear people is that of where to put the waste.
Nuclear plants may be vulnerable to sabotage, including terrorist attacks
You get lots of power for relatively little cost, on the other hand Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and you have to find a place to put the waste (which is really nasty).
Cons that aren't really cons
1. Nuclear waste -- According to a study by Stanford University the waste consists of the fission products. They are highly radioactive at first, but the most radioactive isotopes decay the fastest. (That's what being most radioactive amounts to). About one cubic meter of waste per year is generated by a power plant. It needs to be kept away from people. After 10 years, the fission products are 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years, the fission products will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they are originally derived from. Radical anti-nuclear elements claim that the waste is highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years because they do not tell you about reprocessing of fuel that is done in France, Japan, Canada, Russia, and many other countries that use nuclear power.
2. Nuclear proliferation - Every country wanting to make bombs has succeeded as far as is known. None have used material produced in power reactors. (Plutonium produced in RBMK reactors may have been used in Soviet weapons. The RBMK was designed as a dual-purpose reactor suitable both for power production and bomb production. For this it was necessary to be able to replace fuel rods while the reactor was operating, and this made the reactor too big for a containment structure, and this is what allowed the radioactivity to spread). Iran may be doing this. In the US we are talking about single purpose reactors for power not bombs. Radicals will try to scare you and tell you that if we build nuclear power plans and fuel reprocessing plants, then nuclear bombs will proliferate. However, the Carter Administration decided not to reprocess nominally on the grounds that if other countries could be persuaded not to reprocess, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation would be reduced. So far not one other country has been persuaded. Meanwhile other countries rely less on oil and more on nuclear, except the US.
3. National Security - Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists some will say. Well actually, the plants are designed so that a plane can be crashed into the reactor and it will not break or leak. So this is a scare tactic used by those that think we can run the country on solar power. Perhaps some day we can but not yet. Don't be fooled by those that lie about nuclear power.
4. Accidents - Fewer people have died from radiation poisoning than from mining other forms of energy. Does this make the deaths less important, no. Any death must be guarded against. But the record so far, including Chernobyl, shows that mining for coal is far mor dangerous.
5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer. However, using fossil fuels causes far more cancers. Is Nuclear Power Plants safe? No. Nothing is perfectly safe, but they are safe enough to be relied upon as a source of energy. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, some say we don't have to rely on risky nuclear power. However, the reality is that to power New York City all of New Mexico would have to be covered with solar collectors. So, solar is just not feasible yet. Give up? No, research should continue. Meanwhile Nuclear is needed until Solar is more efficient.
6. Not enough sites - Some say there are not enough sites for nuclear plants. See above answer about covering the state of New Mexico with solar cells to power New York and then tell me that there is enough room for solar. This is a false argument against nuclear power.
7. Not enough uranium - Some say - even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. This answer does not tell you that no one is proposing that ALL of the worlds energy come from Nuclear, just like it is not feasible that it all come from wind or solar. Plus this answer does not account for nuclear plans that generate more fuel and it ignores reprocessing of spent fuel to pull out more usable fuel.
8. Costs - Some say that a nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy while accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community. This of course is a complete lie. We do not yet know what jobs could be created by expanding solar nor if it would generate more jobs than expanding other sources of energy. Meanwhile, cities in France COMPETE for nuclear plants to get the good paying jobs. Which is a better paying job, nuclear engineer or solar panel installer? By the way, few will tell you that it takes and ENORMOUS amount of electricity to make solar cells. Where does that electricity come from. Well right now it comes from fossil fuels.
9. Private sector unwilling to finance - Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place. Of course the same can be said for subsidies to finance the use of any alternative power source - remember the credits for solar power on your income tax form? Well, that's tax payer financing.
A:Advantages-Disadvantages
I think the positives of nuclear power is very important for development in the fiel of medicine and therapies , on the negative folks, is in the use of the extermination of the human race
ADVANTAGES
The world is running out of coal and oil. After these 2 resources become scarce nuclear energy can still be used.
Nuclear Power plants produce much more energy with much less than Fossil Fuels, which produce less and cost more.
Well operated nuclear power plants don't cause pollution, unlike the burning of Fossil fuels.
DISADVANTAGES
Nuclear energy is extremely dangerous. 2 nations, Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons that can kill every person on the face of Earth. What if there was a nuclear war, or if Terrorists got them...we'd be in deep s**t
Accidents in Nuclear power plants may occur. This is caused by a radiation or hydrogen leak, which will explode the entire factory like a bomb and the area around it.
A nuclear power plant needs much less fuel than a power plant that uses coal or oil. Also, nuclear power plants do not give off smoke.
I think so, but others disagree. It is a controversial issue.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of wave energy
It's it is renewable
Advantage : Clean Energy Loads of Energy can be created in one single nuclear plant Disadvantage : Risky Waste Fuel Dangerous Lots of Safety Concerns
ADVANTAGES 1. releases large amounts of energy from small amounts of mass 2. very efficient 3. fuel lasts a long time 4. convert nuclear energy into thermal energy DISADVANTAGES 1. they are very expensive 2. they are hard to keep up 3. the waste is hard to get rid of
disadvantages are, It can take up to mid 10 to 20 years to build a nuclear power plant. It is the most expensive electric source yet found. advantages are, it contains the most powerful energy. One atom can light up the whole new york city.
no
no
a nuclear family is when your parents are divorced and remarried with 2 or more kids
ummm
yes
The Advantages-The Energy is more efficient and cleaner for our air and it can be less expensive The Disadvantages-Nuclear Power Plants can be dangerous if not taken care of, There's is only certain areas geographically that you can put Power Plants (Away from Water) and you have to find a place to store all of the Nuclear Waste. (It has to stay underground for atleast 1000 years before it can be removed)