Nuclear energy requires less fuel to work than fossil fuels but it has more harmful by-products. To make nuclear energy, one of these two substances are needed. Either uranium or plutonium. Uranium is naturally occurring, plutonium is not. Nuclear fission is a nuclear reaction in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts and free neutrons as well. The diagram shows uranium being split. It is a chain reaction that is controlled. Nuclear fission produces energy for nuclear power. The amount of free energy contained in nuclear fuel is millions of times the amount of free energy contained in a similar mass of fossil fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Nuclear power station:
Inside the nuclear power station, there is a core. This is called a nuclear reactor; the picture is of a nuclear reactor.
It contains fuel rods, fuel rods contain uranium. It's the uranium which is active. Also in the core a thing called a moderator is needed. This is to make the reactor work. Without the moderator, the uranium will not undergo this nuclear reaction, and the whole thing won't work. In addition there are things called control rods which can be pushed into the nuclear reactor when it's working, and shut it down. And they do that by controlling the reaction in the core. All a nuclear power station does is produce heat. The heat boils water to make steam, which can drive a turbine, which drives a generator. This is exactly the same as in a conventional power station. Unlike most means of generating heat, the reactor is very economical on the amount of fuel needed. For example, twenty-eight tons of uranium is needed for a year of working, whereas a power station that burns coal would need two thousand tons a week and it produces carbon dioxide. So nuclear power stations don't need large transportation of fuel. But the fuel in a coal burning power station is a fossil fuel, it's not renewable. Nuclear power stations have very dangerous by-products which have to be stored for long periods of time. But there are only very small amounts of this fuel needed. At the same time a nuclear power plant can be built well outside a town. It can be built where it isn't going to do any harm to the local population.
eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/video_4977212_how-nuclear-energy-works.html#ixzz19RrgQdZL
Advantages
Nuclear power plants are more efficient and are being made more reliable and safer. The technology is already available. They don’t release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like fossil fuels. Although the cost of building nuclear plants is high, the running costs are low compared to fossil fuel plants because one reason is that they only need small amount of uranium to produce a lot of energy.
Disadvantages
The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature. They could be targeted for terrorist attacks. It takes 20 to 30 years to build a new nuclear power plant. Uranium is not renewable it will also run out like fossil fuels. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
Argument
One of the main arguments against nuclear energy is that the power plants are not safe. After the Chernobyl disaster in Russia no more power plants where built in Europe. People for nuclear power argue that they are now much safer and this is evidenced by more and more nations such as China building nuclear power plants and they haven’t had any disasters. Plus they argue that they are better built now with extra safety. Uranium is a scarce resource; its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. However, in a scientific journal scientists say that they uranium could last 230 years and this could improve in the future with better techniques used for enrichment. Nuclear waste is definitely a problem that is recognised by people that argue for and against. The most troublesome elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years). Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment usually burying it deep underground. Pro nuclear people argue that there are ways being developed to tackle this like developing new technology which changes the elements into more useful forms. Or, with the advances being made with space travel, the waste could be sent into outer space towards the sun. Those that argue against will also point out that there is currently no long term plan to manage this very dangerous waste.
Conclusion:
I think we should be developing alternatives to both fossil and nuclear energy. They are both bad either for the environment or human health. The money that is being spent should be going towards other ways of producing energy. The hydrogen car for example should be encouraged and made cheaper. Electricity could be made from tidal energy because Britain is an island so it has lots of water surrounding it and no one really uses the beaches because it’s too cold in this country.
References
This is a scientific journal, it is peer reviewed so it is reliable.
This is not a scientific journal so it is less reliable.
This is not a scientific journal so it is less reliable
eHow.com
This is not a scientific journal so it is less reliable
This is not a scientific website so it is less reliable but I think teachers might use it so it might be OK
This is not a scientific journal so it is less reliable
