Is nuclear a clean energy source?

Answer 1

Compared to everything else we have currently? Yeah. But there's a lot of hysterics and bad information out there. So, here you go:

The uranium which powers a nuclear reactor has a long enough half-life (the rate at which the atom decays, which is the measure of its radioactivity) is long enough that you can safely hold the pellets in your bare hands for 80+ years before there is a statistically noticeable (not even significant, just noticeable) increase in the rate of radiation poisoning. You receive more radiation in a single x-ray at the hospital. Not only that, a single plant is able to produce more energy than 40 traditional coal burning plants.

Now, it is important to understand how nuclear power is generated to really understand why its safe.

Pellets of Uranium are essentially submerged in water and as the uranium decays, it heats the water and turns it into steam. The steam turns a turbine and this spins, generating electricity.

That's really all there is to it. The only byproducts are steam (which is not radioactive) and spent uranium. Its cheap, effective and lasts a long time.

In theory.

In practice, there are, to be a fair, potential hazards.

1) nuclear waste: while the waste is actually more stable (and therefor less dangerous) than the raw uranium, nobody wants to take the risk. And, of course the more radioactive material in an area, the more likely to experience radiation poisoning.

2) out-dated reactors: If the reactors aren't maintained (as was the case at chernoble), there is potential for a "melt-down" where pressure builds up in the containers and they can potentially explode. This can, potentially, release radioactive material into the air. However, it needs to be remembered that nuclear material is very heavy when compared to most airborne particles, so it doesn't travel very far. And, even if the reactor explodes, it will not be a NUCLEAR explosion; there is no mushroom cloud. The conditions required for a nuclear explosion, as seen with nuclear weapons requires VERY specific and controlled conditions for the chain reaction to start and requires a less stable form of radioactive material than is found in reactors.

3) The uranium has to be mined: like coal, there are always side-effects from mining. However, uranium is not consumed as quickly as coal and generates more energy per pound.

4) Before it can be used in a reactor, most uranium has to be refined. This is a chemical process and again results in by-products.

So how does nuclear really stack up?

It IS cheaper, more effective and significantly less polluting than any other fossil fuel.

Nuclear IS more cost effective and generates more energy than solar/wind/water/geothermal and requires less in terms of maintenance (geothermal turbines, for instance, are extremely expensive to maintain)

Nuclear energy is pretty safe: You get more harmful radiation in a single day from solar and man-made sources than you get from radioactive materials

Answer 2

Nuclear energy is considered a low-emission energy source as it does not produce greenhouse gases during electricity generation. However, the process of mining uranium and disposing of radioactive waste poses environmental risks. So while nuclear energy can be considered relatively clean during operation, the entire nuclear fuel cycle must be considered when evaluating its environmental impact.