0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How realistic would it be to use nuclear energy?
there are pros and cons for using nuclear power (as with all power sources). pros of using nuclear power are: it can produce at lot more power than a combustion reaction can e.g burning coal, uranium and plutonium (used in the reactors of nuclear power stations) is fairly cheap. cons of using of using nuclear power include: the waste products of nuclear reactions are incredibly dangerous and take thousands of years to become un-reactive, nuclear power stations also have hefty maintenance requirements, cost a lot to build and don't last as long as more conventional power stations. So to address your question- people are divided over whether the pros of nuclear power outweigh the cons. it may be realistic to nuclear power, however it is very unlikely that it will be the world's main power source.
How long does it take to develope a nuclear power?
it takes about millions and millions of years to develope a nuclear power.
What has nuclear energy done for the environment?
Nuclear power does not produce emissions like CO2 and sulphur dioxide that are produced when fossil fuels are burned.
When was nuclear power discovered?
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. But the process of getting from that point to having nuclear power was long and consisted of many steps over a period of over forty years. Nuclear fission was first achieved in the lab by Enrico Fermi in 1934, and the nature of fission was first understood in 1938. The fact that a critical mass of uranium-235 could produce an exothermic chain reaction was part of this understanding and lead to research to produce both nuclear power and a nuclear bomb. The first experimental nuclear reactor, which, as a proof of concept, only produced heat without any view to how that heat might be used, was the Chicago Pile-1, or CP-1. It achieved criticality on December 2, 1942. The first power plant to produce electricity was the EBR-I plant near Arco, Idaho. It produced about 100 kW of power.
Is there any chance of a nuclear explosion from a nuclear power plant?
No. There is no possibility whatsoever of a nuclear power plant having a nuclear explosion. It is not physically, or even theoretically, possible for the core to be brought into a super-prompt critical geometry and held there long enough to consume enough fuel to "go nuclear".
How can you produce energy in future by nuclear power plant if there is no source?
The source of nuclear power is the nucleus of an atom; any atom. As long as there is mass in the universe there will be a source of nuclear power. Even if in the future we run out of the radioactive material we currently use to fuel nuclear power plants, it would be foolish to assume that we will never again be able to harness nuclear energy in another way.
How realistic would it be to use nuclear energy?
there are pros and cons for using nuclear power (as with all power sources). pros of using nuclear power are: it can produce at lot more power than a combustion reaction can e.g burning coal, uranium and plutonium (used in the reactors of nuclear power stations) is fairly cheap. cons of using of using nuclear power include: the waste products of nuclear reactions are incredibly dangerous and take thousands of years to become un-reactive, nuclear power stations also have hefty maintenance requirements, cost a lot to build and don't last as long as more conventional power stations. So to address your question- people are divided over whether the pros of nuclear power outweigh the cons. it may be realistic to nuclear power, however it is very unlikely that it will be the world's main power source.
Compare a power plant that burns fossil fuels with a nuclear power plant?
Both power plants generate electricity, but a fossil fuel power plant burns coal, oil, or gas to produce heat that boils water into steam to drive a turbine, while a nuclear power plant uses nuclear reactions to heat water into steam. Nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel plants do. However, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that needs to be safely managed for a long time.
How is nuclear energy usefull to mankind?
It is useful because it does not produce carbon dioxide as it is not combusted to produce energy, also, it gives off huge amounts of energy from small quantities of uranium or plutonium. However, it takes a long time to power up or power down nuclear plants, making it quite inefficient.
How long does it take to develope a nuclear power?
it takes about millions and millions of years to develope a nuclear power.
What has nuclear energy done for the environment?
Nuclear power does not produce emissions like CO2 and sulphur dioxide that are produced when fossil fuels are burned.
When was nuclear power discovered?
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. But the process of getting from that point to having nuclear power was long and consisted of many steps over a period of over forty years. Nuclear fission was first achieved in the lab by Enrico Fermi in 1934, and the nature of fission was first understood in 1938. The fact that a critical mass of uranium-235 could produce an exothermic chain reaction was part of this understanding and lead to research to produce both nuclear power and a nuclear bomb. The first experimental nuclear reactor, which, as a proof of concept, only produced heat without any view to how that heat might be used, was the Chicago Pile-1, or CP-1. It achieved criticality on December 2, 1942. The first power plant to produce electricity was the EBR-I plant near Arco, Idaho. It produced about 100 kW of power.
How long will nuclear power last before it runs out?
About 100 years.
How long have there been protests against nuclear power?
Since it started
What would be the social consequences if a nuclear power plant exploded?
First and foremost, it is impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode. i.e. to go nuclear, because it is impossible for it to stay in prompt critical geometry long enough to consume the fuel for a runaway reaction to occur. Period. Not possible. Even if a terrorist organization infiltrated the facility and blew it up, that would be a chemical explosion, not a nuclear explosion. Yes, there would be release of radioactive materials to the environment, but it would not be a nuclear detonation as from a nuclear bomb. Get your heads straight around that. Its just not possible. The geometry is all wrong.
How did the the atomic bomb create cleaner energy?
Can't see how it did directly, but I suppose you could say that the Manhattan Project spawned the nuclear industry, and nuclear power does not produce exhaust gases like fossil fuels do. Nuclear is cleaner in some ways, but one must recognise that it also does produce very dangerous waste. This can be contained though, it doesn't pollute the evironment so long as it is handled carefully.
Is nuclear power sustainable?
For a long time to come, compared with oil and gas
