It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.
It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.
It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.
It is a ... mixed blessing. It won't produce carbon dioxide, and thus it should reduce global heating. However, there is currently no safe way to get rid of the nuclear wastes, which are also quite dangerous. I believe ecologists normally oppose nuclear energy, for this reason.
Nuclear energy provides electricity which is good for humans, and for the environment it does not produce greenhouse gases, so that is good. However it has dangers too, so must be well controlled
Nuclear energy is released from the nucleus when U235 fissions, it appears initially as kinetic energy of the fission fragments, these are then stopped in the fuel material and turned to thermal energy. We can't use the nuclear energy directly.
Energy that is stored in the nucleus of an atom is called Atomic Energy or nuclear energy.
Energy (in the form of heat), also free neutrons.Binding energy
Currently we do not have any good solutions for disposing of the nuclear waste, which will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Additionally, accidents and nuclear power plants can be catastrophic and can potentially make an area uninhabitable.
It's makes bad enviornment. And it's not good for the enviornment.
Nuclear fuels is not only bad for us, but for the enviornment. Some nuclear plants dump nuclear waste in rivers, oceans, lakes and ponds. This can kill and injure living organisms including us. It is not even good to bury it in the ground. Nuclear waste has to be specially desposed.
because you do not have to burn fossil fuels (which is good for the enviornment) one day these fossil fuels will run out, so we need a renewable energy source (something that won't run out)
It does not produce CO2.
I do not know what the word "good" means in this context. Nuclear energy is a natural phenomena and natural phenomena have no morality, they just are. What has morality is mankind and how/if he choses to use the phenomena nature has given us.
Mainly that no good solution has been found to dispose of the nuclear wastes.
No, nuclear energy is not good for the environment because after they get the energy there is nuclear waste which is radioactive and is NOT good for the environment.It can be if well controlled, as no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases are produced. However if things go wrong as in Japan now (March 2011) then it is definitely not good for the environment or the people who live in it.
It is the cheapest form of energy and produces no carbon emissions.
Yes it is because it helps us with cancer.
They provide energy.
totally
Nuclear energy provides electricity which is good for humans, and for the environment it does not produce greenhouse gases, so that is good. However it has dangers too, so must be well controlled