Why use nuclear energy when we could use solar and wind power?
i mean doesn't it make more sense to use alternative energy?
- NukemannLv 510 years agoBest Answer
Nuclear Fission Pros and Cons
1. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin)
4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors, Much higher than solar or wind
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates high paying, long term, skilled jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record.
11, Does not require back-up and storage facilities like solar and wind.
12. More economical than solar per Mw produced.
13. Much smaller footprint, takes up less land than Solar or wind.
14. May be located almost anywhere on earth, most efficient near a cooling water source.
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available. (we should build one)
4. High cost of personnel.(high paying jobs in my community)
5. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism. (minimal risk, easier to refine ore)
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a new Nuclear power plant or high level waste storage facility in my community. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and I'm completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
I have confidence that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource or at least smart enough to handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed, 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.Source(s): http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.htm... http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/nucfuture.html http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
- Anonymous10 years ago
If we converted all of our nuclear plants to wind and solar then the majority of the country would be without power. Solar and wind create incredibly low amounts of power when compared to a nuclear power plant.
- CathyLv 44 years ago
At this point fossil fuel and nuclear are by far the most abundant and cost effective means. Someday that may change, but not in the near future. Details: Sun and wind are not consistant enough to produce power economically. If cost or dependability were not issues then renewables would be more effective.
- mikeyLv 610 years ago
Solar and wind with the current technology are not efficient producers of electricity, they do not do as well as water for example, they are costly to install, have high maintenance costs, and are unpredictable.
Nuclear power is predictable, safe, and very efficient, technology is improving all of those items, and the raw materials are available in abundance in this country. The burning of "fossil fuel" (or abiotic fuel, depending upon which group you agree with) to produce electricity should be abandoned, we need about 400 high megawatt nuclear generating plants in this country within the next 5 years. That would limit our oil imports to practically Zero, and same the natural resources for generations to come.Source(s): old doc
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- StarkLv 610 years ago
everyone who has an idea of this area knows that solar and wind power is better for the environment. the problem is, it's too unefficient. both provide so little power.
- Anonymous10 years ago
No wind = no power
No sun = no power
Both take huge amounts of space to make a little bit of power.
- Robert KLv 610 years ago
Welcome to Germany.
According to the decision by the govt. of Germany and in agreement with the companies running nuclear rectors the time nuclear reactors are allowed to run has been limited and we are shutting them down over the next 20 years. On the other side the production and use of alternative energies will be supported by investments and tax cuts.
Germany has crated with this the largest alternative energy segment of all countries in the world, created 500,000 jobs (mainly research and engeneering), off shore wind power parks and others and companies are just looking into a concept to establish solar power farms in north Afrika and a grid to supply Europe from there.
And we the same living standard as the US ........
It is all a question of political will.
But this has something to do with the fact that after the nuclear power plant in Tschernobyl blew up our children were not allowed to play outside for several days because of the nuclear fall out which drifted to Europe and rained down on us.
Regarding some comments:
Nuclear power was not available until > 1945, the first 200 years of the industrial revolution we were succesfull without nuclear power.
There is a bunch of alternative energies available and in development:
- Solar Power
- Solar thermic power
- wind power
- tidal power (using tidal waves)
- geo thermal power (using the temperature of lower levels of the earth)
- water power (dams, rivers)
- algae biofuels (in development)
- waste (burning of household waste = electricity + heat)
- wast from agriculture (fermentation, methane)
- fusion- ......
- energy demand reduction: more efficient cars, heating system, better heat isolation of buildings, intelligent designs (a iPod needs far less energy then a Radio/CD/Tape player, LCD TV needs far less energy then an old TV) reduction of packaging (even Walmart got it and uses it in advertising), glass bottel instead of plastic
- the new building of the Times in NY is a close zero energy house, the US army build a solar farm to power air force station in Nevada, Great Britain will build a wind farm with 3000 turbines in the North Sea by 2020, in Lybia a solar power plant is build in combination with gas turbines, they test to store energy in a salt/water cavern which can be used during he night to generate power
- storage: the EU plans a electricity grid between the countries to pump water up into existing water dams during the day with surplus power and produce energy for the night (if necessary)
- GM and other producers work on electric powered cars, Brazil uses high amounts of ethanol produced by sugar cane for cars (and Chevrolet offers the cars !)
- In NY you can already choose if you want to buy energy from renewable resources or others (ConEdison), the price is appr. 20 % higher (the gasoline prices fluctuated between $ 2 and $ 4.30 during the last 2 years), NY will replace its cab fleet with hybrids and thinks already to replace them with electric cars by 2020
And just imagine the 20 bn $ which now be used to clean the oil spill would have been use to build alternative energy productions, invested in energy efficiency, in the development of concepts, the training of people to run them ,..........
There is not one golden solution, but a lot of different solutions and combination.
If you want to follow the development I suggest you look on this website now and then:Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
- 10 years ago
- Marvy GirlLv 710 years ago
we need to raise scientists and mathemeticians.......Source(s): i don't belive there is enough of either