Nuclear power is once again considered a prominent alternative, despite the disregard it was met with in the 1970s. This is because it’s now being touted as a more environmentally beneficial solution since it emits far fewer greenhouse gases during electricity generation than coal or other traditional power plants.
If I had to choose between nuclear energy or coal I would choose coal because if you used nuclear energy it could cause a melt down but coal would be more helpful because it does not cause melt downs.
I think using nuclear energy would be most benficial with the least negative impact on the environment. There are pros and cons to using nuclear energy. Some advantages of nuclear energy are low costs, base load energy, low pollution, and high energy density. Some disadvantages of using nuclear energy are accidents occurring, like nuclear radiation on humans, and radioactive waste. http://energyinformative.org/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
i think coal because Coal can be mined and burned with little environmental impact. There has been tremendous strides in environmental responsibility with mining coal and burning coal. However, there still is pressure of global warming. If we burn less fossil fuels, what, as a practical matter, is our energy alternative?
I think neither because the earth will run out of coal eventually. Coal also lets out greenhouse gasses. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste which can harm the environment.
I think coal would be most beneficial because, there would be no nuclear waste. Also, if you have a woodstove, that would help because, it can keep you, and your house warm.
Using coal or nuclear energy for what? I'm just going to assume it's for energy. So I think coal is more beneficial, even though there is a limited amount and the smoke pollutes the environment. I think coal is more beneficial because there is no radioactivity, and since it burns, we don't have to find a place to put it.
I believe that using nuclear energy is better for the environment because it does not emit greenhouse gas, which is very bad for the environment. Coal can release more fumes and bad gasses, and it can be very expensive to look for. Nuclear energy also has a higher concentration of energy.
They are both pretty bad though, nuclear energy could cause radioactive waste. But I think it is better for the environment over all.
I believe that when choosing between coal and uranium, uranium is a better, safer source of energy. Coal, as we all should know, cause the emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases cause depletion of the ozone layer, which protects the Earth from harmful UV rays that originate from the sun. Uranium, however does not cause emissions of that sort. Uranium does, however, cause excretions of radioactive material that is harmful to humans if not taken care of correctly. At least with uranium and/or plutonium used for energy, you can control the excretions whereas with coal, you cannot completely control the emissions. Both uranium and coal have their downsides, but coal's downsides are far worse.
75 comments:
I think coal would be most beneficial and have the least negative impact because nuclear energy can kill you if you get too close to it.
I think coal would be better because if it gets out it would not do anything to the earth.
I think coal would be the better choice, because it a lot less dangerous than nuclear energy.
coal
Nuclear power is once again considered a prominent alternative, despite the disregard it was met with in the 1970s. This is because it’s now being touted as a more environmentally beneficial solution since it emits far fewer greenhouse gases during electricity generation than coal or other traditional power plants.
I think if we used coal it would make less pollution in the air and nuclear energy can get you sick if you are near it.
I would say Coal because that only helps burn fire...
If I had to choose between nuclear energy or coal I would choose coal because if you used nuclear energy it could cause a melt down but coal would be more helpful because it does not cause melt downs.
I would use coal One beneficial is it is cheap and one bad thing is we will run out soon
I think coal would be the most beneficial and have the least negative impact because nuclear energy can cause a disaster for people to fled the city.
i don't really know because we are running out of coal and the power plants are dangerous.
I think that Nuclear energy would be the most beneficial to the environment because it has a lest of a chance to get out to the environment \.
I think using nuclear energy would be most benficial with the least negative impact on the environment. There are pros and cons to using nuclear energy. Some advantages of nuclear energy are low costs, base load energy, low pollution, and high energy density. Some disadvantages of using nuclear energy are accidents occurring, like nuclear radiation on humans, and radioactive waste.
http://energyinformative.org/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
Coal is the better choice because it will not cause pollution and it is cheap to buy.
Coal is the better choice because it will not cause pollution and it is cheap to buy.
I think Nuclear energy. Its less pollutional.
Coal is the better choice because it will not cause pollution and it is cheap to buy.
Nuclear and coal energy are both pretty bad .When you dig for coal you will use dynamite and that herts the environment .
nuclear energy
I think nucular. Coal you use tnt that can be bad for wildlife
Coal is a better choice because it will not cause pollution.
I think that it would be better to use some of coal for some stuff and use some of steam for some stuff.
I think coal would be better because of less pollution to the air.
coal does not hurt the environment as much as nucular energy
I think that coal is more beneficial because it will not cause pollution and it is cheap to buy.
I think nuclear energy has a less negative impact.
I think coal because it would not do anything to the earth.
I think that coal would be a better resource because it does not use nuclear radiation
Coal is better than nuclear energy because you hurt the air rather than the whole environment.
i think that the caol is more benefical.
earth to
Coal cause it causes less pollution.
i think coal is more benefical than neucular
i think coal because Coal can be mined and burned with little environmental impact. There has been tremendous strides in environmental responsibility with mining coal and burning coal. However, there still is pressure of global warming. If we burn less fossil fuels, what, as a practical matter, is our energy alternative?
i think its coal it will only hurt the air
I think if I had a choice, would choose coal because it would not create nuclear waste.
I think coal even though we rip up a bunch of earth to get it at least it cant kill like the nuclear waste
I think neither because the earth will run out of coal eventually. Coal also lets out greenhouse gasses. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste which can harm the environment.
Coal because it wouldn't make nuclear waste and put harm into our environment.
I think cole because it wont be radioactive
I think coal because it can't do anything to the earth.
I think coal would be most beneficial because, there would be no nuclear waste. Also, if you have a woodstove, that would help because, it can keep you, and your house warm.
coal
i think using coal and nuclear energy will do less beneficial and less things but it could give more also
I would probably use coal because I would rather find coal than make something to hold the nuclear energy. Also nuclear energy puts off nuclear waste.
nuclear it wont hurt the environment as much as coal
I think coal because it does less damage
coal it can't make a place that is where we can't live
I think coal would be more benificial and better for the environment because it's natural.
I think coal nuclear energy is known to explode.
nukeler engery can het stuff but not as mutch and coal
They are both bad. So we could get rid of them both.
nuclear because dosent cause climate change.
coal
Using coal or nuclear energy for what? I'm just going to assume it's for energy. So I think coal is more beneficial, even though there is a limited amount and the smoke pollutes the environment. I think coal is more beneficial because there is no radioactivity, and since it burns, we don't have to find a place to put it.
Coal because it wouldn't make nuclear waste and put harm into our environment.
I think coal would be most beneficial and have the least negative impact because nuclear energy can kill you if you get too close to it.
I think that using coal would be the best choice because it makes less pollution for the air and environment.
I think Coal because it cant hurt nature
coal
I think coal would be most benificial because it doesn't leave toxic waste and that stuff can really mess you up :P
I think coal because it is less dangerous
I think coal would be more beneficial.
i think coal is more benefical because neclear energy is harmful to the environment and can be vary harmful to people
i think coal because if it gets out it would not do anything to the earth.
I think it would be most beneficial and have the least negative impact because nuclear energy can kill you if you get too close to it.
coal cause it can't harm
Coal would be better cause if you use nuclear energy it would kill you.
I think coal is more beneficial.
i think coal use if it gets out it would nothing will happen to the earth .
I believe that using nuclear energy is better for the environment because it does not emit greenhouse gas, which is very bad for the environment. Coal can release more fumes and bad gasses, and it can be very expensive to look for. Nuclear energy also has a higher concentration of energy.
They are both pretty bad though, nuclear energy could cause radioactive waste. But I think it is better for the environment over all.
Coal would probably be more beneficial because of the safe energy not causing any disadvantages like radiation or global warming.
I believe that when choosing between coal and uranium, uranium is a better, safer source of energy. Coal, as we all should know, cause the emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases cause depletion of the ozone layer, which protects the Earth from harmful UV rays that originate from the sun. Uranium, however does not cause emissions of that sort. Uranium does, however, cause excretions of radioactive material that is harmful to humans if not taken care of correctly. At least with uranium and/or plutonium used for energy, you can control the excretions whereas with coal, you cannot completely control the emissions. Both uranium and coal have their downsides, but coal's downsides are far worse.
Post a Comment