Is nuclear energy better than fossil fuel energy?

Answer 1

This is a controversial question, with different people advocating different positions.

Pronuclear people assert the idea that nuclear plants do not pollute. They sometimes say that the plants have no carbon footprint, though this is technically not correct, because the calculation of the carbon footprint should include the construction of the plant; mining, refining, enriching, and transporting fuels; decommissioning; and dealing with waste. Also, there is occasional radioactive material lost from nuclear plants, and there is the possibility of accident, both from the reactor as electricity is generated, and from waste products, which will have to be stored for thousands of years at least, if they are disposed of by storage.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, produce large amounts of carbon dioxide at the very least. They can also produce sulfur emissions, mercury emissions, and other pollutions, depending on the specific fuel used. At the very most nonpolluting, we find natural gas powered turbines, with waste heat initially trapped for secondary electric generation, and secondarily used to heat buildings. Pollution from natural gas is almost entirely carbon dioxide.

If we compare the two, taking all the carbon emissions of both nuclear and natural gas, the estimate is that nuclear has a carbon footprint about 40% of that of the most efficient natural gas. This does not allow for the use of waste heat from nuclear plants to heat buildings, because nuclear plants are not normally built near cities.

Nuclear power has potential for radiation releases, which fossil fuel plants do not. To understand how bad this could be, consider the Chernobyl Disaster. This was a bad accident, but a worst case scenario would have been considerably worse. As it is, there were agricultural losses in Scotland and losses of entire herds in Finland, both over a thousand miles off, and normally thought of as upwind. Losses of land use went to thousands of square miles, roughly a quarter of the area of New England, for many years, and many square miles of land are considered permanently lost. The cost has been estimated as high as a trillion 1995 dollars for Eastern European real estate. High level nuclear waste is more poisonous than uranium ore (which is not particularly safe) for about six million years.

The short answer I would give is nuclear is better if nothing at all goes wrong for a time so long most people cannot imagine it. Otherwise, as bad as global warming is, fossil fuel is better.

The good news is that there are many, many other forms of fuel available, we can get to a point where the choice between nuclear and fossil fuel is moot because no one is using either.

Answer 2

Depends.

Reason:

This is due to the fact that a Handful of Uranium can produce the same energy as 4000 Train loads of coal. And that nuclear energy is Clean. It does not produce Co2 when coal Produces 3.5 Million tons of C02 Emissions per year.

Nuclear powerplants are not as safe as Coal Powerplants.

Considering that an Explosion will make an area at the radius of 400 Kilo meters Uninhabitable when exploded and release around 40-60 thousand Roentgens per hour.

Answer 3

No, we need both plus any other energy sources we can get.

Answer 4

Nuclear energy avoids the addition of greenhouse gasses to the environment, while burning fossil fuels increases greenhouse gas load on the atmosphere.