Does the UK need more nuclear power stations?

Question

Please help ...i need some stats on the emissions, the costs, the efficiency and i need the sources as well please!!

Answer 1

The nuclear industry has a different view on this from organisations opposed to nuclear power. So, since we undoubtedly need to renew some of our existing power stations, you need to compare nuclear with non-nuclear for your stats to have any relevance.

Contact - by email - BNFL for their point of view, and either Greenpeace or the Renewables Forum for theirs. Both will give you lots of stats - which appear to contradict each other.

Think about what is involved in each of your headings:

Emissions - during construction, and in the extraction and transport of Uranium, and in the burial and safeguarding of radioactive waste, and the decomissioning of the power station for nuclear.

Clean coal technology - the costs of carbon storage.

Renewables - turbine manufacture, cable and pylon laying and erecting, emissions in building concrete bases for turbines etc.

Good luck

Answer 2

Sorry! I'm not doing your home work for you, look it up on the computer you will never learn anything if you keep asking some one for the answer.

Answer 3

nuclear power has no dangerous emissions but does produce toxic waste which is costly to disposed of. It's coasts a lot to build but in the long term it's cheaper then other forms of power.

it's one of if not they most efficient forms of power as a small amount of fuel can power a large area for a long time.

the only pollution they cause is visual. and although people see them as dangerous, the chances of a melt down is nil. the only reason the meltdown at Chernobyl occurred is because of MAJOR human error. It's more likely that you could win the lotto a few times in a row.

the stations are powered by sources such as plutonium and uranium. this form of fuel is non-renewable.

personally I think we should concentrate more on wind, solar and hydro power, and should get rid of nuclear power and fossil fuels.

other non-renewable energy sources are: fossil fuels (coal and oil) etc...

renewable energy: solar, wind, hydro (wave power) etc...

you should be able to find this information around the web on such sites like: s-cool revision-(type it in google)

hope this helps :-)

Answer 4

A nuclear reactor, just works as a big boiler, so from the point of few of thermal efficiency, nuclear and conventional coal fired power stations, can be treated just the same. As there's a heat exchanger between the radioactive coolant, and the working fluid which drives the steam turbine using the Rankine cycle, the cycle efficiency will be a little lower. Figure that wikipedia quotes as an average is about 42% of thermal heat to shaft power.

I'm not 100% sure that ALL the mass that's destroyed is converted to usuable heat energy (by E=mc2) but I'm not a nuclear physicst. Some could be released as high energy photons, and could maybe escape from the "boiler" (low risk, we're hit by it ALL the time)

I would consider ANYTHING, that comes out, other than power to be an emision. For a confentional power station this is ash/dust/smoke, and for nuclear it's the solid waste (wonder what happens to the small quantity of gasious elements produced as part of the nuclear reaction. eg alpha particles turn into helium, are they just vented? Have heard the world wide levels of a particular isotope of Kypton can be used to calcuate the total nuclear power produced world wide. By knowing how much is known to be produced, we can estimate how much is being produced "secretly")

Can't help much with the figures, but hope some of the above helps.

---

As a side issue, the fuel for nuclear reactions and atomic bombs (or the fuel for the trigger of a fussion bomb) will eventually be consumed(if the plans go ahead, probably within 100-200 years.), possibilty reducing the long term risk of nuclear war. Clean nuclear weapons need the fissile material renewed every so many years. Suppose "dirty" bombs are more likely if theres more nuclear waste around, but don't think the millitary has much "use" for them.

So build more nuclear power stations now , and you reduce the useful lifespan of nuclear weapons technology.

Answer 5

Of course not.We've put it of so long now because of green cranks we might as well settle down either to freeze and/or starve to death.There are nutters about who want all of us to shut down fossil fuel stations,prevent the building of hydroelectric stations,rubbish wind power...the list is endless and we have had it bigtime!