If the uranium (nuclear power source) is controlled properly, then it can produce safe and environmentally friendly energy. However if uranium is not contained and controlled then it can be environmentally catastrophic.
Virtually all of the reactors in the United States (all commercially) are water cooled reactors unlike the Russian counterpart in Chernobyl. Water cooled reactors are far safer and less likely to have the runaway situation occur as it did in Russia.
When viewing the safety of any for of power, we need to look at the entire operation. Coal burning plants cost over 13,000 lives annually due to mine accidents. They also emit CO2, which has been inked to some environmental issues. Acid rain and sulfur dioxide are also byproducts of coal burning plants.
A nuclear accident like Chernobyl causes far few issues, long term, then the annual carnage from coal burning plants. Compared to the known problems with coal and fossil fuels, nuclear is much safer.
there was nuclear energy in the science experiment
Yes, nuclear energy does produce radioactive waste. This waste needs to be carefully managed and stored to prevent harm to the environment and public health. Research is ongoing to develop better methods for the safe disposal and recycling of nuclear waste.
Uranium stores potential energy inside its nucleus in the form of nuclear binding energy. This energy is released as heat when uranium undergoes nuclear fission in a controlled environment such as a nuclear reactor.
I'm pretty sure that nuclear energy is not as safe to use as solar energy is. I wonder if the Japanese people are anxious to escape their reliance on nuclear energy, now that they have experienced a serious meltdown event.
Nuclear energy does have benefits for the environment as it produces low greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels. However, the production and disposal of nuclear waste pose environmental risks, and the potential for accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima also raise concerns. Improved safety measures and waste management practices could make nuclear energy a more viable option for addressing climate change.
It doesnt
Not much pollution unless there is a nuclear reaction.
I believe nuclear energy is a very good energy source. Since we are running out of fossil fuels and our environment needs improvement, nuclear energy can meet these needs. Nuclear energy does not pollute, but it produces radioactive waste. This waste is taken care of in a safe way, not being exposed to people. If a person were to use nuclear energy for his or her whole life, the waste would be only one pound and would fit in a soda can; whereas with coal it would fill a line of coal cars from New York to California. And there was never an accident in nuclear energy that couldn't be prevented. Everything is extra safe.
there was nuclear energy in the science experiment
it kills plants.
Yes.
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 can be if plants are designed inherently safe and operated responsibly.
i dont now
Yes, nuclear energy does produce radioactive waste. This waste needs to be carefully managed and stored to prevent harm to the environment and public health. Research is ongoing to develop better methods for the safe disposal and recycling of nuclear waste.
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 reactors are not very safe at all. the nuclear energy buisness basically went to crap after the three mile island accident, because people decided the risks outweigh the benefits