ok i know nuclear is clean and everything, but this is for a debate topic and i know there’s something about the radioactive waste and stuff so wat else is bad about nuclear power that is environment related?
(may be broke/outdated!)
ok i know nuclear is clean and everything, but this is for a debate topic and i know there’s something about the radioactive waste and stuff so wat else is bad about nuclear power that is environment related?
Unspillable.com is your gateway into to the intriguing world of energy mysteries, revolutionary fuels, and the science driving alternative energy solutions. Delve into the depths of covert agendas and unexplained phenomena surrounding energy sources while uncovering the latest advancements in renewable technologies. From debunking conspiracies to exploring the cutting edge of sustainable energy, we’re your go-to resource for unraveling the secrets shaping our energy landscape.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
4 Responses
There are lots of opportunities for contamination from the time the Uranium is mined to the time it is used and safely stored.
Actually, it’s the complete opposite. Nuclear power is the energy of the future. It’s the cleanest, cheapest, most efficient power we have. There are literally zero emissions from a nuclear power plant. It’s abundant, and we are able to yield high amounts of energy from a small amount of uranium. The only major concerns have been from meltdown and disposal of used uranium. The meltdown problem is essentially a problem that is unfounded. It pretty much stemmed from Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 in the Soviet bloc. Their reactor was very poorly constructed and not made to withstand a meltdown. So when the poorly built facility did do that, there was no containment, and the area surrounding the plant was contaminated. And the other was Three Mile Island on the east coast. It melted down, but there was literally no leakage from the plant because it was constructed properly. And today, technology is even better to ensure that if a meltdown did occur, there wouldn’t be contamination outside the plant. And as for the disposal, containment facilities do their job by holding the waste indefinitely. And just recently it has been found that spent uranium loses much more of its radioactive properties than previously thought. Even the founder of Greenpeace, a former nuclear energy opponent, has recinded and realized nuclear is the way to go. Basically, it’s the way to go if we don’t continue with coal since all other current options are too expensive, inconsistent, or both along with a boatload of other reasons.
Magnus got it right.
Nuclear energy is safe, it doesn’t hurt the environment, cheap, produces a lot of energy, and easy to get.
The waste is radioactive and there is no way to reuse it or make it safe. We can only store it forever. There is always a threat of contamination with storage and trasportation. There is also the threat of a meltdown caused by mechanical or human error. The most famous disaster Chernobyl killed many and the contamination caused many longterm health problems to both human and wildlife.