Follow-Ups to Answer from Expert Osman Kemal Kadiroglu

---

PiE tA wrote at 2006-06-19 11:11:37
nuclear power technology have been linked with nuclear weapons. nuclear power plants are terrorist targets,accidents are practically inevitable. there is a radioactive waste disposal problem in which reactors are surrounded by large amounts of waste that is vulnerable to terrorist attacks or theft. nuclear accidents are involuntary for the spectators and the everyday person can not protect themselves. accidents like the three mine island (march 28, 1979)and chernobyl (april 26, 1986)which can/will cause deaths, people having to be relocated and settled, people having to be hospitalized immediatly, negative health, economic, environment and psychological effect. and the list goes on. nuclear power has its good points but if anything goes wrong, there is fatal and dangerous effects.

PiE tA

---

whitefire wrote at 2006-07-21 17:32:21
Yes, nuclear power technology can be extremely dangerous if misused or mishandled, but this does not and should not in any way invalidate the advantages made available by utilizing it. As with any other technology, better and safer operation techniques and engineering designs are developed as time progresses, achieved often by simply 'learning from your mistakes'. All that must be considered then is whether these 'mistakes' are too costly or too consequential to justify the long-term payout. In my view, nuclear power is not only a possibility in the quest to diversify energy sources, but a responsibility we must cultivate for future generations. Hopefully, the widespread paranoia that surfaces whenever the word 'nuclear' is whispered will not prevent further innovation in the field of nuclear technology.

---

witch wrote at 2007-06-29 03:55:00
Nuclear energy is NOT green energy.  It is clean but not green!!!!

---

bob wrote at 2007-09-06 00:54:24
Acully, you will find that Nuclear Power DOES produce green house gases, but no where near the amount gas and coal stations do.

---

AnTiClOcKwISe wrote at 2007-09-06 00:57:20
Simple info here...



PROS

- Greenhouse gases from nuclear power are about 12 times less than gas power stations and about 30 times less than coal stations

- Australia has a large percentage of the world's high grade uranium ore that could service a domestic market

- Australia could reap billions of export dollars if uranium mining was expanded

- Most cheap and most clean way of producing electricity

- Is a “green” enery so it wont pollute the atmosphere

- No poisonous elements like Cd, Pb, etc in ash

- Very reliable does not depend on the solar cycle or rain fall





CONS

- Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy. High-grade, low-cost ores will run out in 50 years

- It is not "greenhouse gas" free, producing more emissions than some renewable power sources such as wind

- It would take at least 10 years and several billion dollars to build Australia's first nuclear power station

- Plants are potential targets for terrorists attacks; smuggling of radioactive material is on the rise; no complete solution to the disposal of radioactive waste has been found

---

Schmidty wrote at 2007-10-30 00:44:45
that last guy sounds like he works for a powerplant or something. although it does not add gasses to the enviroment, it produces radioactive waste, which is not safe for about, oh say 100-200 ... THOUSAND YEARS! And think about what terrorists could do to a powerplant, or if they got thier hands on the waste. It is also expected that the earth will run out of urainium ( the stuff were nuclear energy comes from) in only 60 years!

---

Kelsea wrote at 2008-02-14 22:18:24
People oppose nuclear power because of common sense: it is unsustainable, nonrenewable, and dangerous.



What are you planning to do with the radioactive waste? There are no sustainable, permanent solutions to the waste problem.

---

Aj P-Wiggan wrote at 2008-02-17 23:48:16
Nuclear Power is not the cleanest way of producing electricity, it is only a cleaner method as a posed to the use of fossil fuels. Wind, solar and wave turbines, are far safer and cleaner than Nuclear Power. It is true that the only gas given off as a by product is H2O (steam).



It is however also true that Nuclear Power currently is one of the most cheapest, and most profitable means of generating electricity.



No radioactive gases are given off in the production of the electricity, but the waste from the Uranium is highly radioactive. The waste can be buried safely in concrete, but even still it remains radioactive for thousands of years. If for whatever reason the concrete does crack and release radioactive waste, we will have a major issue on our hands.



There is nothing to fear with Nuclear Power, apart from really finding a safer way of getting rid of the waste.



Yours Aj

---

Lucas wrote at 2008-02-25 16:15:03
Here are some cons:



1.   The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium.  The supply of Uranium is only supposed to last for about 30 to 60 more years.



2.   Nuclear power plants could be preferred attacks for terrorists, as well as nuclear waste.  An attack like 9/11 on a nuclear power plant would be devastating.  It would affect the whole world.



3.   It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security.  There will always be a small chance of failure.  If there was an accident, it would be bad for both nature and humanity.



4.   Radioactive waste is produced from the operation of nuclear power plants.  The waste can be made into nuclear weapons.  Also, the know-how used to produce a power plant can to some extent be used in the production of nuclear weapons.  

---

Bella Swan-Cullen wrote at 2008-03-22 23:40:36
But there are also many cons. For example, nuclear power produces dangerous radioactive waste that is tricky to dispose of. Nuclear power is not renewable.

And a LOT of money needs to be spent on safety issues(i.e. leaks and properly disposing radioactive waste).

---

angel wrote at 2008-05-15 14:21:55
yea, but its too unreliable here are my cons:



Cons -



   1. Meltdowns



If there is a loss of coolant water in a fission reactor, the rods would overheat. The rods that contain the uranium fuel pellets would dissolve, leaving the fuel exposed. The temperature would increase with the lack of a cooling source.  When the fuel rods heat to 2800°C, the fuel would melt, and a white-hot molten mass would melt its way through the containment vessels to the ground below it. This is a worst case scenario, as there are many precautions taken to avoid this. Emergency water reservoirs are designed to immediately flood the core in the case of sudden loss of coolant. There are normally multiple sources of water to draw from, as the low pressure injection pumps, containment spray system, and refueling pumps are all potentially available, and all draw water from different sources. The disaster at Three Mile Island was classified as a partial meltdown, caused by the failure to supply coolant to the core. Although the core was completely destroyed, the radioactive mass never penetrated the steel outlining the containment structure. Several feet of special concrete, a standard precaution, was capable of preventing leakage for several hours, giving operators enough time to fix the flooding system of the reactor core. The worst case of a nuclear disaster was in 1986 at the Chernobyl facility in the Ukraine. A fire ripped apart the casing of the core, releasing radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. Thirty-one people died as an immediate result. And estimated 15,000 more died in the surrounding area after exposure to the radiation. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are just examples of the serious problems that meltdowns can create.



2. Radiation



Radiation doses of about 200 rems cause radiation sickness, but only if this large amount of radiation is received all at once. The average person receives about 200 millirems a year from everyday objects and outer space. This is referred to as background radiation. If all our power came from nuclear plants we would receive an extra 2/10 of a millirem a year. The three major effects of radiation  (cancer, radiation sickness and genetic mutation) are nearly untraceable at levels below about 50 rems. In a study of 100,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been 400 more cancer deaths than normal, and there is not an above average rate of genetic disease in their children. During the accident at Three Mile Island in America, people living within a 50 mile radius only received an extra 3/10 of one percent of their average annual radiation. This was because of the containment structures, the majority of which were not breached. The containment building and primary pressure vessel remained undamaged, fulfilling their function.



3. Waste Disposal



The byproducts of the fissioning of uranium-235 remains radioactive for thousands of years, requiring safe disposal away from society until they lose their significant radiation values. Many underground sites have been constructed, only to be filled within months. Storage facilities are not sufficient to store the world’s nuclear waste, which limits the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year. Transportation of the waste is risky, as many unknown variables may affect the containment vessels. If one of these vessels were compromised, the results may be deadly.  

---

Mmjack wrote at 2008-06-02 21:40:33
Nuclear power as it is now is very dangerous however with some advanced in waste disposal and increases in safety plus use of things like Breeder reactors (Where the reaction produces more nuclear fuel however the created fuel is very hard to get because its in a nuclear reactor.) nuclear power could be come a viable option until l we have a more renewable infrastructure in place. At the moment most of the "Renewable" power sources are not a viable option because we cannot build enough of the.

---

Thom wrote at 2008-09-22 02:46:22
The only answer recorded here solely listed the pros of nuclear power-

there are a number of cons as well.

1) It might not raise any greenhouse gasses, but it produces enormous amounts of waste heat - nuclear piles "burn" at hundreds of thousands of degrees in order to produce super heated steam at about 800 degrees. The rest of that heat is wasted, and put into the environment. This is why they need "cooling towers" - they burn very hot.

2) the total amount of uranium on the planet will only last about 30 years if used to produce the world's electricity.

3) the fission reaction leaves incredibly long lived and poisonous by products, for which their is no reliable method of disposal nor containment.

In my opinion, nuclear power Does provide an option for energy production, but only when used with extreme caution, and then only long enough for us to perfect truely green and sustainable oil alternatives.

---

RelseyK wrote at 2008-11-14 14:19:31
I would just like to say that I am a freshman in college and am writing a paper on nuclear power. I was searching for some information given by experts on the subject when I came across Mr. Kadiroglu's answer. While his information may very well be valid, his grammar skill, however, make him out to be an incredulous source.

---

J wrote at 2009-03-26 22:44:15
You are way, way off. It is not a green energy since it has been proven to add low amounts of CO2 (green house gas) to the atmosphere, much less than fossil fuels.



It is not renewable as the fuel source Uranium is a scarce resource.



It is more expensive then the other post leads on.



Reprocessing nuclear waste and Uranium is extremely expensive yet it can be done.



It also takes 20 to 30 years to plan and build a nuclear plant.



Some pros are: emits low levels of CO2 vs fossil fuels, technology is available and pretty well developed, it produces large amounts of electrical energy in a single plant.

---

lhheath wrote at 2009-11-11 13:07:10
Whilst nuclear is not the perfect solution to the problem of climate change, and does have several problems such as the waste and relatively limited sources of uranium. It is however the only viable option to ease carbon emissions and move the world away from fossil fuels to renewable sources. IT can’t be seen as a solution but as a step in the right direction. And it does offer many major benefits; firstly a single nuclear power plant can produce a very high amount of power with a relatively low amount of CO2 being produced (aprox 12times less then gas and 30 times less then coal). Also the technology for nuclear energy, unlike many of the other suggested ‘alternative’ power supplies, is ready now. And that is needed as to set up any form of mass power production is going to take years so action needs to be taken now. It is also far more reliable than any other alternative energy (and yes I am referring to nuclear as an alternative energy sources, by that I’m not implying its green) sources, such as wind and solar. It does also not realise any poisons such as Cd or Pd.

Action needs to been take now, not in twenty years when levels of carbon in the atmosphere would be irreversible. However I do stress that fact it is not a solution and research in truly renewable sources of energy need to be continued with.  

---

Natalia wrote at 2011-04-13 20:58:53
You are a little wrong it is not cheap to make a nuclear power plant it is actually very expensive to make.

---

ZeJerman wrote at 2011-07-07 00:14:49
We are entering the 4th generation of nuclear reactors, and these have far advanced upon the first generation reactors that were used during the 60's-80's.



The biggest improvement has been the implementation of reactors that cant have run away reactions in the event of loss of coolant.



Nuclear fuel sources can and will last for billions of years as they are infinite, cyclotrons that bombard inert elements with neutrons will create a radioactive isotope that can be used as fuel.



Waste is a problem but with new technology in the generation reactors harmful impurities are destroyed in the energy making process leaving predictable and known substances that can be dealt with via entombment or a future technology.



Thousands of people have died in coal mines, gas refineries and other fossil fuel based industries. 86 people (Not including Japan as an official estimate of people that have been killed by the radiation it self hasn't been released) have been killed in nuclear accidents, all of which were from Chernobyl.



Similar to aviation, technology has to be derived from trial and error and so far nuclear power has stepped up to the plate by being "Green", safe (as only 3 catastrophic failures have ever happened), renewable, and has good bang for your buck when it comes to energy output.



Regards

ZeJerman

BSc Nuclear Chemistry (Currently Writing PHD Thesis)

BSc Nanotechnology

---