0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Does nuclear or coal energy mostly contribute to the climate change?
Coal energy releases greenhouse gases when burnt, causing global warming. Nuclear power has very little effect on climate change.
Does Nuclear Power save energy?
Nuclear power plants generate electricity without burning fossil fuels, so do not release CO2, which causes climate change.
What advantage does nuclear power have over solar wind and hydroelectric?
It doesn't contribute to climate change (APEX)
Is nuclear power the answer to climate change?
It does not produce the greenhouse gases so that is beneficial. It is part of the answer but I don't think most countries want to be wholly dependent on nuclear.
Is uranium good for climate change?
Uranium is used as nuclear fuel for nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power plants don't contribute to global warming, greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide releasing. Uranium is now the most important alternative to fossil fuels.
Is splitting uranium in a power plant a physical nuclear or chemical change?
It is a nuclear change because there is a change in the nuclear structure of Uranium.
How is a nuclear power station different to a fossil fuelled power station?
Nuclear power produces clean electricity without any carbon dioxide emissions.Fossil fuel (coal, oil and natural gas) power produces electricity with carbon dioxide emissions which are causing global warming and climate change.
Is a nuclear power plant same as nuclear power station?
Yes, it generally is but a nuclear plant could refer to nuclear reactors which are basically the things that produce the power. So in essence, yes, a nuclear plant is the same thing as a nuclear power station
Nuclear power is likely to change in the future?
of course it will.
Why is nuclear power not a solution to climate change?
Yes, nuclear power is at least a partial solution to climate change. But, to be fully effective, we need to convert all home heating and transportation to electricity-based, AND convert all electricity generation to nuclear-based. This will necessitate the construction of thousands of nuclear power plants around the world, a very expensive undertaking.There are those who will argue that nuclear power is unsafe, and that the disposal of nuclear waste is a serious problem. But, if the consequences of climate change are half as bad predicted, then nuclear power is, by far, the lesser of two evils.A:Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. (See IPCC Fourth assessment report).Therefore, replacing carbon intensive processes such as fossil fuel electricity generation with low or zero carbon ones such as nuclear power could help mitigate climate change and its potential effects. However, supplies of uranium, might be insufficient to fuel a much larger number of reactors, although the IAEA claims we have enough high grade uranium ore at present rates of use for at least 85 years (see IAEA 2006).Other nuclear technologies such as fast-breeder reactors which regenerate their own fuel, and thorium fuelled reactors, may have far greater potential. However, the economics and safety of these technologies still have to be fully demonstrated. In fact, economic considerations and political opposition due to the safety concerns of nuclear power has limited its widespread use, although some countries such as France continue to generate a large proportion of their electricity this way.
Is there an alternative to nuclear power that you could use?
yes such as power and electricity
Is splitting Uranium in a power plant a nuclear change?
Yes
