Close Topic Options

Fossil Fuels Vs. Nuclear Power

NUCLEAR POWER NO GREEN ALTERNATIVE TO FOSSIL FUELS: STUDY

Nuclear power is not an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, says a new study released Thursday by a Canadian environmental group.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...lear-study.html

Power Nuclear Vs Fuels Fossil

I have believed this for a while. It does put out less noticable pollution into the air, but nuclear waste is fundamentally dangerous and stays that way for thousands of years. You can't clean nuclear waste, you can only store it or bury it and keep people away from the radio active areas the waste will create. They simply pollute different areas, but both need to be replaced with something that pollutes less and creates energy that is renewable, a tough mix to get.

Fossil Fuels Vs. Nuclear Power UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

This is a interesting page that shows the entire "nuclear cycle" as it is called. As it says, a lot of spent rods are stored on-site. Some of the spent rods are reprocessed and you can see that on the graph, but the key is what is done with what is left. Vitrification is basically taking the waste and encasing it in glass. This is done so that if the container that it is burried in fails, then when water touches the contents inside they wont disolve or be allowed to spread with the water. The glass that it is burried in is very chemically resistant.

https://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

Unfortunately, this is a costly process and is not done in many countries. Reprocessing of fuel rods is common, but the remaining waste from that process is nasty and should be vitrified. Unfortunatley, it is usually just stored. Also, many spent fuel rods are mearly stored on-site. However, what concerns me most is the quantity of decommissioned reactors that have not been dismantled. When we talk about waste, we mostly talk about just the fuel rods, but there is a lot more when you decommission and dismantle it. In Japan, I lived about 15miles from a nuclear plant. Of the 5 reactors on the site, only 1 was really working. The others were "shut-down" and not actually decommissioned. As it was explained to me, decommissioning would end up costing the nuclear company money, but simply shutting it down was cheaper. When asked why they shut the other facilities down, I understood it to be for structural safety reasons. The worst part is that these reactors are in a area of Japan that is well known for catastrophic earthquakes.

Power Nuclear Vs Fuels Fossil

Name: Carissa

Comments: Fossil fuels are going to eventually run out.And they will run all out by the year 2040.We need to use nuclear fuel so it cant run out and it does no pollute the air like fossil fuels do.

Power Nuclear Vs Fuels Fossil

Under the theory of fossil fuels being a limited resource, we really shouldnt go nuclear either then. There is only a limited amount of nuclear material stored in the earth and it will run out eventually. Nuclear waste pollute the earth. The soil on which we grow food and purify our water.

I agree that we need to be less scared of using nuclear power, but it isnt going to power our cars anytime soon and it doesnt come without baggage itself. The desserts in the US where the first bombs were blown up still have unacceptable levels of radiation around them. Chernobyl is still uninhabited and will be for centuries. Not to mention, it is requiring a renovation to its sarcophagus to prevent a even further enviromental catastrophy.

Source 6
Source 7

99.99% successful operation rate is unacceptable for most of us because that means there will be another failure like Chernobyl. Nuclear power does have its draw backs and I guarantee you no one reading this message board would vote to accept a nuclear waste dump or a reprocessing facility in their community. So yeah, we all get nuclear power, but where do the waste sites and reprocessing facilities go.

I do agree, we need to start relying on nuclear power more. But it wont stop our dependence on oil as most of our power plants are not oil powered...they are coal. Coal is in no short supply, but it is dirty. Even clean coal is pretty dirty. The fossil fuel you are referring to is most likely oil which means we need to figure out something for our cars and I can also guarntee you I am in no hurry to drive anything nuclear down a highway!

Fossil Fuels Vs. Nuclear Power

I saw a interesting report on the tv yesterday. We can grow algae as a means to produce oil. Since algae grows rapidly in CO2 rich waters we can harness the CO2 emissions from power plants and feed this gas to the algae which would produce more oxygen. Thus we can clean up the planet while making another source for fuel. Thus we lessen the need for us to produce power with nuclear fuel. Maybe this will help us in our never ending quest in getting nuclear fission going. IF we get that going we will have more power than we know what to do with and we will have more than plenty fuel to keep this going.

Fossil Fuels Vs. Nuclear Power

I lived not that far from a plant that had a known leak by the operators and owners. It is still not commonly known. The nice solution was not to clean it up as that is too expensive. They just bought up the next 3 farms that were near it. Why so that by the time it leaks out that far they will have the technology to fix it. Any one need a slightly used containment bunker?

This waste is going to be here longer then the human race so moving to create more seems well just unwise.

I hope the algea might be a better solution. Grow it, harvest it, burn it.

Fossil Fuels Vs. Nuclear Power Sciences Education Art Writing & UFO

No you grow it and then stress it out so it produces oil. This way you can keep getting more and more as you grow more and more algae.