which do you think is better coal or nuclear power?
Graham M asked:
carbon capture and storage (CCS) coal power stations or nuclear power stations. CCS is were the CO2 is stored some how one way is as a liquid or it is filtered through a field of algae and used as animal feed and/or bio-fuel
carbon capture and storage (CCS) coal power stations or nuclear power stations. CCS is were the CO2 is stored some how one way is as a liquid or it is filtered through a field of algae and used as animal feed and/or bio-fuel
CCS is experimental. I’ll vote for nuclear. We need both nuclear and research into carbon capture and storage in order to respond in a responsible way to global warming.
Nuclear power is vastly superior to coal.
Coal is contaminated with Mercury and radioactive Uranium and Thorium
Many tons of Mercury and radioactive Uranium and Thorium are released to the environment every year as a result of the burning of coal in power plants.
Nuclear Power Plants are much cleaner than Coal Fired Power Plants.
Ironically replacing Coal fired power plants with Nuclear Power Plants will dramatically reduce the amounts of Mercury and radiactive Uranium and Thorium that are released to the environment.
Also when the fuel rods of Nuclear Power Plants are reprocessed to produce new nuclear fuel, virtually all of the nuclear waste is eliminated because the waste is used to make more fuel.
Fortunately nuclear power plants are very safe. In the United States of America we have over 100 nuclear power plants that have been operating safely for over 40 years.
In France, voer 80% of the electricity is generated safely, cleanly and affordably by nuclear power.
nuclear is better
If they can clean the pollution that coal produces and render it into a non-pollutant, I’m all for it. Better that than 1,000,000 years of nuclear waste in some corner of the world.
But the problem comes in when we have depleted all the coal. Coal is a finite resource, just like oil. What do we do when coal is running out like oil is now? No, we have to find some other source of energy. One that doesn’t pollute and is replenishable.
Coal is making our atmosphere worse nuclear has a risk of blowing up. Nuclear is better in my opinion.
Catching the carbon would be a waste of time, but Nuclear is better under any circumstances. (It’s way easier to haul the fuel around.)
Nuclear Power. Coal has got us into too much trouble.
i think coal
very good ? but id unfortunatly have to say nuclear because it is a more effective way the coal because coal uses electricity and the energy made from burning the coal can partly go away. Also nuclear is more stable as in it wont run out saddly even thought there are very dangerous byproducts
I think nuclear is better.
Nuclear is far superior to any other form of generation but one and that is space based solar. The advantage of nuclear is that it can be fitted in place of the boiler in a coal plant upgrading it to a clean renewable system. Coal is not renewable and we will run out of it in 100 to 200 years and it is expensive to use and mine. Nuclear once recycling is allowed again in the US as it is in the rest of the world costs will drop to 1/10th the cost of coal.
Nuclear is the way to go…one technology in hand is worth two in the bush.
Neither one is really any better than the other. Each one carries with it a long list of pros and cons. I say we should look into fusion energy. Its a ways off but ultimately the best possible source for clean energy.