Is nuclear energy cleaner than fossil fuels?

Michaelangelica · #1 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

Is nuclear energy cleaner than fossil fuels?

It is an argument we are having in Australia at the moment with most of the world's uranium here + a lot of the world's coal reserves.

KickAssClown · #2 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

well it would seem that Nuclear energy is dirtier, to me at least.

A nuclear PP has at least three pollutants. Heat, Irradiation, and Nuclear Waste. Also there has been some research that suggest that Nukes produce more $C0_2$ than Coal or Oil. It has to do with the combined processing of the components and raw fuels.

Michaelangelica · #3 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

It is a debate that has been started by the most right wing PM we have seen in years.
I supect his motivation
SEE
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1644671.htm

PM promotes nuclear power debate

Reporter: Michael Brissenden

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. It's a debate the Prime Minister has been hinting at for a short while now, but suddenly, the issue of nuclear energy has become an argument Australia has to have. As he jets about the world, Mr Howard has clearly decided to promote nuclear power as a priority debate. He says nuclear power could be a real alternative that would help arrest global warming problems and protect us against rising fuel prices. The nuclear issue has been a volatile one in Australian politics now for many years. Politicians are divided and so is the scientific community. But that's been the case for a long time now. The question is: why is the Prime Minister elevating it now?

ronthepon · #4 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

As much I know, one can get a good deal of matter other than mere Carbon di oxide by fossil fuel at times.

The sulphur, and things like those are also there. To form Sulphur di oxide and all.

Nuclear waste is less in mass, but has a high 'density of badness'. There it's just a question of figuring out what to do with the concentrated 'badness'.

Jay-qu · #5 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

but that badness is much more easily contained then greenhouse gasses..

KickAssClown · #6 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

I'm saying that I heard a study, in like the New york times or something like that, which concludes that Nuke plants actually produce more Greenhouse gases, in addition to the direct waste product, than say Oil or Coal does.

Mercedes Benzene · #7 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

"Clean" is utterly relative.
As for emissions during operation, nuclear power is much cleaner than burning fossil fuels. However:
Nuclear power plants offer a much less "clean" description if you consider the danger of an accident, or the storage of spent fuel.

Although the risk is small, there is always the chance that a nuclear plant will suffer some accident that will release dangerous levels of radiation into the environment. I can name about 3 significant nuclear disasters of the last 30 or so years. These are obviously very sparse events, however they pose serious "unclean" problems.
Also, the processing of uranium (and other products) in order to produce the fuel needed for nuclear plants is immensly dirty. For example, according to Scorecard.org, one of the worst pollutors in the US is a company in Tennessee (if i remember correctly) that processes nuclear materials...

So really, it all depends on what you mean by "clean".
Hope this helps

Zythryn · #8 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

I've read that Australia actually has one of the richest potentials for wind power in the world.

While nuclear plants in opperation are very much cleaner than coal plants (as others have noted) I don't know if the production of the fuel would counteract that benifit or not.

As for why now, it may be getting clear that Australia will be suffering breakdowns due to climite change before anyone else (outside of the poles).

ronthepon · #9 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

but that badness is much more easily contained then greenhouse gasses..

that was eggggsactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I'm saying that I heard a study, in like the New york times or something like that, which concludes that Nuke plants actually produce more Greenhouse gases, in addition to the direct waste product, than say Oil or Coal does.

I need the know if its true or not!!