Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGreen Living · 9 years ago

Nuclear Energery Vs Solar Energy?

Dont you think that we should more concentrate on Solar Energy instead of Nuclear Engery? As we know that nuclear reactors are not good and safe for the human being and all other creatures. The current example we can see in Japan Nuclear disaster. Many people have been suffering from radiation.

8 Answers

  • paul h
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Solar energy can indeed be a useful form of energy but there are limitations to it...only works during the day, limited areas where solar farms can be built, needs a storage medium, etc... and newer thin-cell technology, solar-thermal or multispectrum methods can bring the price per watt down to 1/3 to 1/10 of silicon based systems and being more in line with coal-fired prices.

    Globally, the amount of energy produced from fossil fuels equals around 17 terawatts...trillion watts...per year. It will take a huge investment to eliminate all forms of fossil fuels and convert to clean fuels, solar, wind or nuclear.


    Youtube thumbnail


    "New World Record Achieved In Solar Cell Technology

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2006) — U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner has announced that with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt-hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation's energy mix"

    " Much Land to Power The Whole World with Solar?"

    Nuclear energy from thorium can also be safe, cleaner and cheaper than current designs and fossil fuel plants...small mini-nuke plants can be buried in the ground and produce cheap power for decades with fewer concerns over safety, proliferation and wastes...thorium-based plants also mitigate concerns over wastes.

    Japan's recent problems could have been avoided had they build the plants another 30-40 feet higher or had more robust backup systems..they did not properly consider past earthquake magnitudes and tsunami risks when designing the plants and backup systems. In the 2004 Sumatran earthquake/tsunami, India shut down it's nuclear plants and restarted with no problems.

    Mini-nuke reactors...

    "Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years "

    "Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes£13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry

    "Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

    The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

    The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£16m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.'

    " Toshiba's Micro Nuclear reactors are designed to power a single apartment building or city block, and measure a mere 20-feet by 6-feet. The 200 kilowatt reactor is fully automatic and fail-safe, and is completely self-sustaining. It uses special liquid lithium-6 reservoirs instead of traditional control rods, and can last up to 40 years, making energy for about 5 cents per kilowatt hour."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    A very difficult question - I cannot answer it directly, but can give you my views.

    Solar Pros:

    Virtually unlimited source of energy (The sun)

    Easy to harness

    Solar Cons:

    Very Expensive

    Only reliable in sunny countries and during the day


    Nuclear Pros:


    Emission Free

    Nuclear Cons:

    Radioactive bi-products, with a half life of millions of years

    Very sensitive and require pristine management

    If a coal plant is damaged, fire can be extinguished easily, where as with Nuclear, rods take weeks to cool down and the risk of radioactive waste leaking and causing severe damage (Chernobyl and Fukushima)

    Source(s): Own Knowledge
    • Login to reply the answers
  • JerryJ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.

    Here is an informative article describing the situation:

    And here is where you find current, factual status information:

    Historical status:

    And a slide presentation that describes the effects:

    And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:

    And before you come down on nuclear energy, take a look at coal. In the U.S. 20 to 60 coal miners die each year compared to zero nuclear power plant workers. Pollution from coal power plants kill over 20,000 people in the U.S. annually compared to about 100 people killed world-wide from nuclear power over the last forty years. The only thing coal has going for it is that it doesn't have "nuclear" in the wording so therefore it must be safe. It seems that most people have learned about nuclear energy from sci-fi B movies rather than from studying the science.

    And don't think that coal power is radiation-free either:

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    i think that the reason why we focus more on nuclear energy is that it's very efficient and puts out a lot more energy than solar power can (as of now). I think our society is more focused on the here and now than on the future, so we vie for nuclear energy rather than solar energy

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Marcia
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Nuclear energy as it stands today produces more power with less economic cost using less land than does solar energy. It seems as if we can power part or all of a residence or even office space using solar power but, we are not as able to power manufacturing machinery, processes, and systems operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year. Powering a multistory, multiple dwelling building with far more vertical space than roof space is not as possible using solar power. In terms of supplying a whole building electrical supply using solar technology, we can turn to the experiences of our off-grid pioneers to come across a number of the stumbling blocks they have had over come.

    This is not to say that we cannot utilize the lessons taught to us by our off-grid pioneers and adopt them for our selves. On the other hand, as a country we in the US have elected leaders from within our local communities to represent us, and make decisions for us, who do not appear to have energy sustainability nor distribution concerns in their foremost interests. Of those, some of the more powerful have indicated that they do not believe that there is a need for fossil fuel alternatives.... As a group, these newly elected leaders have further indicated a desire to return to an incandescent light bulb standard, a desire to reduce investment into infrastructure improvements and changes, and more. Rather, they prefer more of a free market approach to shaping product availability, more local investment development of more localized values, and less of a nationally shaped form of governance. Accompanying the election of these National leaders this past fall, were the successful elections of local leaders of similar perspective. In general, this change of leadership perspective was not particularly localized to a single region in the country. This indicates that "the will of the people" has shifted and that the change in leadership is within the perspectives of at least those that voted this past fall. Either that or, the folks that voted this past fall did not adequately understand what they were voting for or what the following stood for such as: lesser government, smaller government, more individual responsibility, lower taxes, lower entitlements, reductions in the cost of government, and even the loss of local pork projects.

    Along these lines, we are more likely to see more of a return to the traditional sources of energy on a National level. Simlarly in many individual locales. That said, it would seem that making individually responsible decisions with respect to our purchasing and using decisions is what is critical at this point. It would further seem that making energy use and on-going operational cost decisions with respect to our appliances that use electricity, vehicles that use gasoline, and more would be the most effective solution. As a society, following up on the Carter Administration's call for more efficient devices and equipment is as critical as delevoping more alternative sources of energy. And, this is certainly something we can affect as individuals through our purchasing decisions. It is probably something we can also affect within our individual communities as well; particularly as local governments are also struggling with their budgets.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    We should definitely focus on safer and cleaner technologies. However, it will take a bit of time before it is embraced by the public because it hasn't proven to be as efficient and affordable as other types of technologies. Nuclear is very efficient way to produce energy.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    i think that the reason why we focus more on nuclear energy is that it's very efficient and puts out a lot more energy than solar power can (as of now). I think our society is more focused on the here and now than on the future, so we vie for nuclear energy rather than solar energy

    if you can, answer mine?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago


    Source(s): Build Home Solar Power :
    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.