Environmental Issues

Garbage is renewable. There is always more coming tomorrow.

But it is not a resource, unless you are using it to generate methane (CH4). Then it is a renewable resource.

Pros:

• It produces electricity without pollution.
• The fuel is obtainable from friendly countries and there is no shortage at present, power can be generated without emissions of harmful or greenhouse gases, power plants do not need to be sited near supplies of coal or natural gas.

Cons:

• The waste fission products in the spent fuel are dangerous and no long term storage facility is available yet, so they are stored on powerplant sites which is not satisfactory for the long term. A long term repository would be well underground and built to make it very difficult for unauthorised access, and to remove any stored material.
• The spent fuel is highly radioactive and has to be carefully stored for many years after use. This adds to the costs.

No Carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming.

Uranium safer to mine than coal (strip mining)

Nuclear plants need very little fuel making them less susceptible to fuel shortages or transport problems.

Uranium produces far more energy than any other fuel (other than the sun which only shines during the day) and is about as expensive as coal.

Nuclear power is very reliable.

Can be used for cancer to kill cancerous cells

Cons

Meltdowns are some of the worst disasters known to man where the reactor core heats up too much and melts; releasing radioactive clouds in the air. Many precautions are taken to prevent the plant from reaching this point, and does make the probability of disasters of this magnitude very unlikely, but is also very expensive.

Byproducts of this power require time away from society until they are no longer dangerous. Transportation of this deadly material is dangerous and the biggest problem faced by pro nuclear people is that of where to put the waste.

Nuclear plants may be vulnerable to sabotage, including terrorist attacks

You get lots of power for relatively little cost, on the other hand Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and you have to find a place to put the waste (which is really nasty).

cons that arn't really cons

1. Nuclear waste -- According to a study by Stanford University the waste consists of the fission products. They are highly radioactive at first, but the most radioactive isotopes decay the fastest. (That's what being most radioactive amounts to). About one cubic meter of waste per year is generated by a power plant. It needs to be kept away from people. After 10 years, the fission products are 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years, the fission products will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they are originally derived from. Radical anti-nuclear elements claim that the waste is highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years because they do not tell you about reprocessing of fuel that is done in France, Japan, Canada, Russia, and many other countries that use nuclear power.

2. Nuclear proliferation - Every country wanting to make bombs has succeeded as far as is known. None have used material produced in power reactors. (Plutonium produced in RBMK reactors may have been used in Soviet weapons. The RBMK was designed as a dual-purpose reactor suitable both for power production and bomb production. For this it was necessary to be able to replace fuel rods while the reactor was operating, and this made the reactor too big for a containment structure, and this is what allowed the radioactivity to spread). Iran may be doing this. In the US we are talking about single purpose reactors for power not bombs. Radicals will try to scare you and tell you that if we build nuclear power plans and fuel reprocessing plants, then nuclear bombs will proliferate. However, the Carter Administration decided not to reprocess nominally on the grounds that if other countries could be persuaded not to reprocess, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation would be reduced. So far not one other country has been persuaded. Meanwhile other countries rely less on oil and more on nuclear, except the US.

3. National Security - Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists some will say. Well actually, the plants are designed so that a plane can be crashed into the reactor and it will not break or leak. So this is a scare tactic used by those that think we can run the country on solar power. Perhaps some day we can but not yet. Don't be fooled by those that lie about nuclear power.

4. Accidents - Fewer people have died from radiation poisoning than from mining other forms of energy. Does this make the deaths less important, no. Any death must be guarded against. But the record so far, including Chernobyl, shows that mining for coal is far mor dangerous.

5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer. However, using fossil fuels causes far more cancers. Is Nuclear Power Plants safe? No. Nothing is perfectly safe, but they are safe enough to be relied upon as a source of energy. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, some say we don't have to rely on risky nuclear power. However, the reality is that to power New York City all of New Mexico would have to be covered with solar collectors. So, solar is just not feasible yet. Give up? No, research should continue. Meanwhile Nuclear is needed until Solar is more efficient.

6. Not enough sites - Some say there are not enough sites for nuclear plants. See above answer about covering the state of New Mexico with solar cells to power New York and then tell me that there is enough room for solar. This is a false argument against nuclear power.

7. Not enough uranium - Some say - even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. This answer does not tell you that no one is proposing that ALL of the worlds energy come from Nuclear, just like it is not feasible that it all come from wind or solar. Plus this answer does not account for nuclear plans that generate more fuel and it ignores reprocessing of spent fuel to pull out more usable fuel.

8. Costs - Some say that a nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy while accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community. This of courseis a complete lie. We do not yet know what jobs could be created by expanding solar nor if it would generate more jobs than expanding other sources of energy. Meanwhile, cities in France COMPETE for nuclear plants to get the good paying jobs. Which is a better paying job, nuclear engineer or solar panel installer? By the way, few will tell you that it takes and ENORMOUS amount of electricity to make solar cells. Where does that electricity come from. Well right now it comes from fossil fuels.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance -Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place. Of course the same can be said for subsidies to finance the use of any alternative power source - remember the credits for solar power on your income tax form? Well, that's tax payer financing.

I don't know sorry :(

It's cheap power but potentially dangerous.

PROS...

There is Little Pollution...

There is Reliability.....

And Its Safe...

CONS...

It can have meltdowns...

Theres Radiation...

Waste in a proper disposable.... (i.e. We haven't really figured out how to store the waste yet so it goes in a container that is buried underground)

Minerals are important for every country for its development and they need to

be conserved because:

a. Industry and agriculture depend upon minerals and the substances

manufactured from them.

b. Workable minerals are in insufficient quantities.(Just one per cent of

the earth's crust)

c. We are rapidly consuming mineral resources that require millions of

years to be renewed.

d. The natural rate of replenishment is very small in comparison to the

present rates of consumption.

e. Mineral resources are finite and non-renewable.

f. Mineral deposits in our country will get exhausted in the future.

g. Due to decrease in good quality and they comes from great depths the

costs of mineral extraction is increasing.

Yes. By definition they affect the temperature: that's why they're called "greenhouse" gases: they emit thermal radiation.

Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33°C (59°F) colder than at present. (from Wikipedia)

What you're likely asking is whether MAN-MADE greenhouse gases are causing the Earth's temperature to increase. This is a hotly (pun intended) debated topic. Turning again to wikipedia:

The 2007 assessment report compiled by the IPCC noted that "changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system", and concluded that "increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations is very likely to have caused most of the increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century".

Russia is the world's largest mineral and energy supply and is known as an "energy superpower", containing 22% of the world's oil, 16% of the world's coal, and 40% of the world's natural gas. Very well known for its tree's, Russia has 1/5 of the world's timber and wood, no surprise. iron ore, nickel, coal, gold, diamonds, furs, petroleum, zinc, aluminum, tin, lead, platinum, titanium, copper, tungsten phosphates, and mercury are the most popular natural resources that Russia provides. Russia has many advantages, and a few disadvantages, for its very hard to mine up north rather then down south. Below are some short notes about the large amounts of natural resources in Russia:

• Has the worlds largest oil reserves
• Second largest coal reserves
• 1/5 largest lead reserves
• Largest reserves of water in lakes
• Largest diamond deposits
• Second largest potassium reserves
• Enormous fish reserves

Russia's forest resources, also known as Taiga, are larger then America's mainland! Taiga contains 1/3 of the worlds timber, and is home to numerous animal resources.