Almost 0 emissions (very low greenhouse gas emissions).
They can be sited almost anywhere unlike oil which is mostly imported.
The plants almost never experience problems if not from human error, which almost never happens anyway because the plant only needs like 10 people to operate it.
A small amount of matter creates a large amount of energy.
A lot of energy is generated from a single power plant.
Current nuclear waste in the US is over 90% Uranium. If reprocessing were made legal again in the US we would have enough nuclear material to last hundreds of years.
A truckload of Uranium is equivalent in energy to 10,000+ truckloads of coal. (Assuming the Uranium is fully utilized.)
A nuclear aircraft carrier can circle the globe continuously for 30 years on its original fuel while a diesel fueled carrier has a range of only about 3000 miles before having to refuel.
Modern reactors have two to ten times more efficiency than the old generation reactors currently in use around the US.
New reactor types have been designed to make it physically impossible to melt down. As the core gets hotter the reaction gets slower, hence a run-away reaction leading to a melt-down is not possible.
Theoretical reactors (traveling wave) are proposed to completely eliminate any long-lived nuclear waste created from the process.
Breeder reactors create more usable fuel than they use.
Theoretical Thorium reactors have many of the benefits of Uranium reactors while removing much of the risk for proliferation as it is impossible to get weapons-grade nuclear materials from Thorium. :) :)
Nuclear energy is well known for its dangers, as demonstrated by the three major catastrophes in history. However, it is also a popular source of energy in countries like France and Japan.
PROS
- Has no emissions, aside from water vapor
- Can be used by any country; does not require dependency on unstable countries
- Is extremely efficient; can generate power for years from a single shipment
- Has had far fewer dangers than coal or oil power plants (aka oil spills, coal sludges, acid rain)
- Does not require major infrastructural changes (oil refineries, tankers, pipelines)
- Is far less environmentally destructive (coal mining vs uranium mining)
- Popular choice throughout the world's developed nations
CONS
- Has had very severe damages in emergencies (Chernobyl, Fukushima, and close-call at Three Mile Island)
- May cause widespread radiation releases if not using properly secured facilities, and can cause 'zones of exclusion'
- Produces radioactive waste that must be sealed and secured for the next 10,000 years; this waste quickly adds up
- Each barrel of radioactive waste can be fuel for a small-scale terrorist nuclear weapon
- Requires extensive mining for uranium (esp in forested Canada and Kazakhstan)
- Makes each nuclear facility a target to terrorist groups and must be secured well
- Nuclear facilities must wait a couple hundred years before being demolished to allow radiation to dissipate
Have a good look at Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
Look up Thorium reactors as they have many benefits over Uranium reactors.
This should help:
http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits....
i have to do a debate on if nuclear energy is your friend or foe i had to take friend so i need to know some advantages on nuclear energy
