Thorium compared to Uranium creates less toxic waste and also unlike Plutonium (the by-product of uranium) the toxic waste created by Thorium will only takes 500 years to be declared safe. In addition, Australia has large reserves of Thorium. Australia should go nuclear because it has the resources, skills and the technology which will be able to create carbon dioxide free electricity which will reduce the global warming
The inclusion of nuclear power within Australia could reduce power prices by 20% and save $150 billion from now until 2050 in greenhouse gas abatement costs. The modern reactors cost about $3 billion. When I say we need to go nuclear power, Australia doesn’t necessarily have to rely on Nuclear power as the only source, but could they go a mix of renewable energy and nuclear energy. Australia is home to many large industries and renewable energy its self would not be strong enough to power them. Nuclear power itself is very simular to renewable energy and emits close to no green house gasses.
These industrial activities have raised atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide which contribute to greenhouse gases. The extra amount of these gases mean there is a thicker layer, meaning the gases absorb outgoing long-wave radiation which traps in too much heat. Increasing amounts of CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and ozone all contribute to this. The main cause in this rise is the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas and petrol. Since the industrial revolution the levels of atmospheric CO₂ have increased from 280 parts per million to 380ppm for the past 10,000.
What happens to the waste? For example, nuclear energy does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide so it does not contribute to air pollution. (Technology Student ,2009) Nuclear power is characterized by the very large amount of energy available from a very small amount of fuel. The amount of waste is also relatively small. However, much of the waste is radioactive and therefore must be carefully managed as hazardous waste.
Many myths include ideas like: "In the event of a nuclear war, the earth will be uninhabitable for thousands of years" or "there will be no use trying to survive a nuclear war because when you come out of your shelter, the earth will be totally devastated." These statements are untrue. They say that the earth would be uninhabitable because of the radiation. Realistically, the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon decays pretty fast. It is true that there are some radioactive particles that may pose a threat to the environment in further future, but they would not pose as much of a problem as one may think.
He said that the worldwide population will triple over the decades; so, nuclear energy would be essential for many lives that have come a costume and rely on this source of energy. He also points out the fact that nuclear power plants are essential because it is a powerful source of energy. It is relatively cheaper and faster compared to other alternative sources. Nader counters with the possible devastating outcomes that could be created by leaked radiation from damaged nuclear power plants would result in inhabitable lands. He also points out the fact that people should focus on the present consumption of energy, rather than the future for energy conservation.
Nuclear waste must also be stored for a very long period adding to the cost. Nuclear has medium environmental impacts due to the energy required to mine transport and process nuclear fuels creating CO2 emissions, and nuclear waste can be hazardous and harmful to the environment if not properly stored, as it can be hazardous and prone to disasters it also has very low social acceptability. Coal is the most abundant, easily mined fossil fuel, it is also very cheap to set up coal fired power stations, this means it has very low economic costs. It produces large volumes of CO2 and other dirtier greenhouse gases and a pollutant meaning it has very high environmental impacts. It also has high social acceptability as it is cheap, not dangerous and not power plants are in industrial areas away from homes so it has limited NIMBY issues and noise, light and visual pollution.
The issue: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a safe way to extract natural gas, a much needed energy resource? Or could it contaminate drinking water and cause other environmental damage? * Supporters of hydrofracking say: There is no proven case of hydrofracking contaminating drinking water, and the process is perfectly safe. Natural gas can revive local economies, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and provide a cleaner-burning fossil fuel. Further regulation is unnecessary and will only prevent an opportunity for the U.S. to develop an alternative energy source and create jobs.
Sweden , for instance, has spent $14 Billion and rising to manage its radioactive waste and is now decommissioning its reactors. Nuclear power is not green due to all the points made above and also due to the following additional facts; namely that nuclear power plants use a great deal of water, uranium is a non-renewable resource and there is significant energy and resources needed to build nuclear plants. 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
The resulting nuclear winter would occur causing the aforementioned minor ice age event, but it is the lack of radiation that prevents this from being a possible answer. This lack of radiation is also how we can excuse a massive nuclear war as the culprit. Though it may be a popular theory for the cause it would take a minimum of 100 accurately placed, Hiroshima sized, nuclear explosions to cause a nuclear winter. This would cause enough radiation to be released that human life would be nearly impossible regardless of other forces such as climate and