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.
Coal energy releases greenhouse gases when burnt, causing global warming. Nuclear power has very little effect on climate change.
Climate change is a global happening, so the solution for the Andes is the same solution for everywhere. We have to stop burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), and we have to stop deforestation. We use fossil fuels for transport and to make electricity. We have to change to renewable energy (solar, wind, water, hydro, tidal and wave, geothermal, ocean thermal, biomass and biofuel). This will generate non-polluting electricity, and with electricity we can do anything. Electricity will power cars, trains, even planes and power all our industries and kitchens as well.
The common idea is that a warmer climate means that there will be more energy to power violent storms such as tornadoes. This view is grossly oversimplified. Weather and climate are very complex and difficult to predict. Scientists are still uncertain how climate change might affect tornadoes.
Yes, most electricity is generated from fossil fuel power, and burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is causing global warming and climate change.
Nuclear power is a very strong source of energy with a high power density. It can produce large amounts of electricity consistently and reliably. However, the strength of nuclear power also brings risks, such as potential accidents and the issue of radioactive waste.
Coal energy releases greenhouse gases when burnt, causing global warming. Nuclear power has very little effect on climate change.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity without burning fossil fuels, so do not release CO2, which causes climate change.
there is not a for sure solution. i have googled it
One advantage of using nuclear power over fossil fuels is that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, which helps to mitigate climate change.
Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gas emissions during operations, so climate change is not a direct risk associated with nuclear power. However, other risks such as radioactive waste, potential for accidents, and nuclear proliferation are concerns related to nuclear power.
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.
Most certainly, nuclear energy can be part of the solution to our energy needs. What the world wants to get away from is nuclear power that relies on fission, or breaking apart the atoms, of radioactive/unstable elements such as uranium. Helium-3 is an isotope of helium that is not radioactive/unstable. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Fusion Technology institute have succeeded in fusing helium-3 atoms, demonstrating that nuclear power, with no radiation whatsoever is not only possible, but it is ready to be fully developed and used.
Nuclear power does not directly emit greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. However, nuclear power plants do produce radioactive waste that needs to be carefully managed to avoid environmental contamination. Additionally, the mining and extraction of uranium for nuclear power can have detrimental effects on local ecosystems if not done responsibly.
One advantage of nuclear power is its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions, helping to combat 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.
It is a nuclear change because there is a change in the nuclear structure of Uranium.
Nuclear fuel emits virtually no greenhouse gases during power generation, helping to reduce overall carbon emissions and combat climate change.