Depends on which nuclear you are talking about. Our current solid core nuclear power plants were developed by the military to produce plutonium for weapons and then by industry who profits by the sale of solid core fuel rods which are basically the inkjet cartridges of the nuclear reactor business, the utility has no choice but to buy the fuel rods from the manufacturer. Very little Uranium is suitable for our current reactors and must be separated by isotope refinement and solid core reactors extract only 0.5% to 0.7% of the energy before having to be re-processed and the Carter administration killed the reprocessing plant. There is an alternate technology abandoned by the military as it produced inferior weapons material and abandoned by industry as the could not lock in the fuel supply, it's called Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, they can not melt down, they can not explode, they consume existing nuclear wastes and they shut down safely if all power is removed and require no power while shut down. Thorium is also more plentiful than uranium and requires no isotope refinement.
Note that burning coal releases heavy metals such as mercury, uranium and thorium into the environmentg. Our coal power plants have released more radiation into the environment than all the nuclear reactors ever have, including Cheronobyl and Fukishima, it's just that the radiation released from coal is considered "natural" and hence are not tracked or regulated. There is more energy in the soot of a coal power plant then was produced by the coal burnt which produced it.
I think Nuclear energy is much more efficient as it does not release as many harmful chemicals into the atomosphere like carbon dioxide (CO2) which in turn builds up and causes the greenhouse affect, when Nuclear power produces radiation from decommissioned rods but that can be contained by putting them in sealed led containers. For the economy I still think nuclear is better as it cheaper than coal.
What a load of trash ,,,,,,
For starters Co2 is not a harmful chemical , it is a orderless, colorless gas without which there would be no life on Earth ( what do plants breath in ? ) . It is however a green house gas ,, one of many .
As far as generating electricity goes for the foreseeable future it will be a combination of both coal and nuclear fission .
Within the next 100 years nuclear fussion will becaome available
Coal: +many jobs (mining and power plant)
-finite, unreproducible raw material
Nuclear: +very efficient
+cheap energy
-possibility of Super GAU
-radioactive waste harmful for hundrets of years
-radio active waste as basis for A-Bomb (Terrorism)
none is ideal for the environment, both are good for the economy
coal is better to d environment .but u see its costly and is also getting extinct.so we try to use nuclear energy and conserve coal. But compared to coal nuclear energy produces a lot of radio active wastes and causes pollution due to the decay of uranium
Nuclear energy is the best as it has the max.efficiency
But using nuclear energy on a large scale can produce a large amount of nuclear waste whose disposal is very difficult
nuclear power. there is no "clean" coal.just the mining of it produces millions of tons of toxic waste. coal will be around for a very long time.
connors right
Which is better for the environment and economy? And what is also a scientific argument as to which is better? Please help.
