Does the UK need new nuclear power stations?

Energy is needed in almost everything we do, and one big source of energy is nuclear power. The use of nuclear power is vastly growing due to the amount of people demanding things like electricity. I will be exploring both sides for and against, if the UK needs new nuclear power stations. The current situation in the UK is that 22.4% of the UK’s power is nuclear power. I will research the energy security, energy crisis, economic, environmental and social factors to decide my decision and use tables and charts to help explain my conclusion.

Some people agree that the UK needs new nuclear power stations. At the moment, about two thirds of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and a quarter comes from nuclear power stations, the rest of our electricity comes from wind power.

This shows us how much energy is used with different types of energy sources, as you can see; this graph shows us that nuclear power is the third most used energy source out of the rest. It tells us that the amount of coal and gas used is double the amount of nuclear power, which suggests the UK is rather dependent on non renewable sources. As the UK gets their coal from other countries, by increasing our use of nuclear energy it makes the UK more self efficient.
Source [1]: P2 Stimulus Material

Nuclear power doesn’t affect the environment because the levels of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emitted are extremely low; therefore the effect nuclear power has on global warming is minimal. Moreover you can generate a high amount of electricity in one single plant, the new nuclear power stations will produce less carbon dioxide than the ones operating today; it would cost less than most other types of power stations and they could be helpful towards helping the environment for future generations. Additionally more energy is produced with one ton of uranium than several million tons of coal or oil.
Source [3]:
Source [2]:
Nuclear power is quite reliable because it only needs a little fuel, so they are less vulnerable to shortages because of strikes or natural disasters. Therefore we don’t need to rely on foreign countries for power as uranium is distributed around the globe evenly and we don’t need to pay for people to dig coal or oil up from other countries. Also the estimates of radon show that it is safer to use nuclear fuel than burn coal. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 people die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents, in contrast no people have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from nuclear power plants. This is due to the safety precautions taken by the people working in the nuclear power plants and the vast number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. They also have several ways of preventing harm to any workers like the reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel, which is surrounded by a thick concrete wall.
Source [3]:
Also people like Steve Mason said “I believe more funding and efforts should be put forward towards the nuclear fusion reactor being planned... Most other forms of power generation provide harmful bi-products be it in the form of greenhouse gasses or nuclear waste. Alternatively I still don't believe wind farm technology or solar power is being exploited to their full extent - and the cynic in me says because there isn't enough tax revenue in it.” This shows that the public think we should make new nuclear power plants in the UK due to the effect that other energy sources might have on the environment.
Source [4]:

Moreover, Japan has embraced the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide a substantial portion of its electricity. Today, nuclear energy accounts for almost 30% of the country's total electricity production. There were plans to increase this to 41% by 2017, and 50% by 2030. As Japan has few natural resources of its own, it depends on imports for some 84% of its primary energy needs. Initially it was dependent on fossil fuel imports, particularly oil from the Middle East (oil fuelled 66% of the electricity in 1974). At this time, Japan already had a growing nuclear industry, with five operating reactors. Re-evaluation of domestic energy policy resulted in diversification and in particular, a major nuclear construction program. A high priority was given to reducing the country's dependence on oil imports. A closed fuel cycle was adopted to gain maximum benefit from imported uranium.

However, following the Fukushima accident in March 2011; the effect this had on the population of Japan was catastrophic as it resulted to a leak of radiation which could harm the people living nearby. By October 2011 the government published a white paper confirming that “Japan’s dependency on nuclear energy will be reduced as much as possible in the medium-range and long-range future.” It also highlights weaknesses in the energy system and says that a new energy policy will be developed by mid 2012. This devastating event created hysteria within the UK with developing and investing in new nuclear power stations; ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Nuclear power stations produce three levels of waste. These are known as low level, intermediate and high level. The high level waste is the most dangerous and can remain radioactive for a long time- maybe thousands of years. This waste is very hot and is stored as a liquid in water-cooler tanks before it is mixed with glass, and finally stored in steel drums in a cooled vault behind thick concrete. It is very expensive to store nuclear waste safely and this is a big disadvantage. Many underground sites are built specifically to store nuclear waste only to be filled within months, Storage facilities are not sufficient to store the world’s nuclear waste, which limits the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year. Transportation of the waste is risky too because many unknown variables may affect the containment vessels. If one of these vessels were compromised, the results may be deadly. Furthermore radiation doses of about 200 rems cause radiation sickness, but only if this large amount of radiation is received all at once. The average person receives about 200 millirems a year from everyday objects and outer space; this is referred to as background radiation. If all our power came from nuclear plants we would receive an extra 2/10 of a millirem a year. This would lead to more people having cancer, radiation sickness and genetic mutation.
Source [3]:
Moreover nuclear power isn’t renewable so soon it will run out and how long it would take to plan and build a nuclear power plant.
Source [2]:

The most reliable source that I used is Source [2] because it’s a website from a certified organisation; focused on this topic, you could say it’s biased as it promotes getting new nuclear power stations; but it gives you both pros and cons about the situation so it’s a reasonable source. Furthermore this source was the most useful source, however it’s not valid as it was last updated in 2007. On the other hand you could say that Source [1] is the most reliable as the information in it is given from an exam board, also it is valid as it is the most up to date however it gives you unnecessary information but it is quite useful and resourceful. My least useful source was Source [4] because it only gave a brief summary on the topic and only had a limited amount of information; in addition it’s not valid as it was written in 2005 and you could say it’s biased as it has the opinions of the public. Then again having the opinions of the public, we have a variety of thoughts giving us a good overview of how the public feel about this situation. Nonetheless Source [3] was also one of the most useful sources as gave a lot of information about the topic and it gave a clear paragraph about the positive and negative sides of the argument also it was last updated in 2012 so it is valid; also the information was clear and easy to find.

In conclusion,