A lot of people think so, but how can this be evaluated? Designers and operators think any risk is minimal, but it's up to the federal government in the end, through the NRC. The benefits are not having to burn so much fossil fuel and hence reducing CO2 emissions.
Many people think so, but some don't. Designers produce analysis of possible faults showing very low probabilities of release of activity. Unfortunately experience gives incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Yes there is.
no
The present nuclear units in the US go up to 1100 MWe, larger ones are planned, up to 1600MWe. So coal plants are somewhat similar, but on one site you could have several units so making a larger total. Most nuclear sites have two units.
Comanche Peak, 40 miles SW of Fort Worth. See link below (Unit 2 similar)
Fission nuclear power depends on uranium which is found in ore deposits, but clearly there is only a certain amount on Earth, so it is not renewable - current (admittedly rough) estimates are that we have several hundred years worth of usable uranium. Fusion power uses hydrogen isotopes; given the amount available through processing water from the Earth's oceans, it is effectively inexhaustible (meaning, there are several billions of years worth of hydrogen to be obtained from the Earth's oceans, which is longer than the remaining lifespan of the Earth).
Approx. 4ooo US $ per gram for nuclear weapons quality plutonium; the price for nuclear reactors grade plutonium is lower.
10 million degrees with a football field worth of hydrogen under a lot of pressure the process is called nuclear fusion
See the NRC website www.nrc.gov for a map of all US nuclear power plants, including Texas
no. u should say: it's (or it is) not worth the RISK. not RISKS
A risk benefit analysis simply means to compare the risks and benefits that a given activity will yield. The purpose is to essentially determine if an activity as "worth it".
Yes, adventure is generally worth the risks. It is important to live life and not regret passing up an opportunity.
Asset management systems provide an easy overview over the efficacy of assets, show risks involved and can help to improve where improvement is of worth.
The risks associated with fission reactors have been greatly exaggerated, with funding from other interests in the energy industry. Even if the risks were to be as great as suggested by the coal industry, they are only risks. The damage to forests, and people's lungs, from acid rain is an established certainty. So is the immensely greater damage already being caused by global warming.
New Zealand decided some time ago that it could forgo the 'benefits' of generating electricity from nuclear energy. We have plentiful sources of hydro available for generation. Indeed, recently Contact Energy, one of the large generating companies, decided to forgo any further developments on the Clutha River (Mata au). Wind energy is plentiful at these latitudes (c45o) and can be located close to the demand locations. So hydro power is less attractive.Part of the bias against nuclear power, is that the feedstock supplies and the disposal of waste were not worth the problem.[Remember the big push for nuclear energy in US and Europe, was not because of the power produced - the interest was almost completely in the Uranium and Plutonium produced for nuclear weapons. The power was a by-product.Once sufficient plants were built to meet the military demands, the nuclear power constructions came to an almost complete halt.]
Most common are oil-powered thermal power stations; there are also some coal-powered and nuclear-powered stations (Mexico has two nuclear reactors worth 1.4 GW). There are also geothermal power plants and hydroelectric plants. Wind and solar power are growing in importance, but are still uncommon.
You can tell if something is worth your money by looking at the risks and the rewards that it carries.
Smart employers should recognize that innovation ideas are going to be worth the risks. Many employers do not want to take these risks because if it does not go as planned, they can lose money.
NO. In most vehicles the brake fluid is different from power steering fluid. It may work for a while, BUT is it worth taking risks with your brakes. Your life may depend on that.
The present nuclear units in the US go up to 1100 MWe, larger ones are planned, up to 1600MWe. So coal plants are somewhat similar, but on one site you could have several units so making a larger total. Most nuclear sites have two units.