**Safety issue.
The US produces more nuclear power than any other country in the world yet there has not been a single US death attributable to nuclear power generation or use including those on nuclear powered submarines who are confined to close proximity to the power generation.
**Construction cost and time issue.
High cost and lengthy construction time. are the result of excessive government regulation and foot dragging in licensing, inspection, and approval process.
During a nuclear reaction, releases a powerful energy by change in the nucleus of an atom that energy is called nuclear energy. The main disadvantage of nuclear energy is it releases high radioactive waste which may damage the environment. Nuclear power is very expensive and it also non-renewable. Proliferation of nuclear technology increases the risk of nuclear war too.
There are many types of nuclear reactors, they are not all big you can many small ones instead of huge expensive machines, nuclear has been damaged by the fact that nearly all the stations built were with the consideration of having plutonium for atomic bombs not just electricity productions, there are other types SMR's, LFTR's, pebble type reactors some of which do not have a waste or a nuclear proliferation problems, it is just our politicians have screwed up as usual.
Nucular energy has alot more pros than cons ill give you the cons since that's what your asking for. High construction costs due to complex radiation containment systems and procedures. High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan guarantees. Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems). High-known risks in an accident. Unknown risks. Long construction time. Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources). Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical, environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have to cover the cost of any damages.) Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure, investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient. Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses) during all of these processes. The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined from the earth. The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners and mines has been catastrophic. Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years. There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t want to host long-term storage of waste. There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns. Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable commercially for another two decades. Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
i need help i have an assignment on why nuclear energy is bad.. can someone help me?
