Should the UK government continue to invest in Nuclear power?

Authors Avatar

 Science Case Study

Should the UK government continue to invest in Nuclear power?

By Ryan Thorman

Introduction

In this piece of coursework I will be looking how the government should continue to use Nuclear power in the UK. Here are some main reasons why I consider this question to be important for this society are many advantages and disadvantages to using nuclear power  

Advantages of Nuclear Power

  • Efficient: Nuclear plants can produce an awful let of electricity, up to about 2GW, which is comparable to coal plants.
  • Reliable: There is no need to worry about interruptions to the power supply: as long as there is uranium, there will be power. This is a stark contrast to most renewable energies which depend on the activity of the weather.
  • Clean: I'm using this term strictly to refer to the greenhouse gas emissions of a nuclear plant. There are some greenhouse gas emissions associated with the life cycle of uranium, as gases are emitted as it is mined and transported etc. However this is significantly less than the emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Essentially, nuclear power would be "carbon-zero" if the the uranium were mined and transported in a more efficient way. There are issues with radioactive waste, however.
  • Supply: No, it's not going to last forever, but at least what there is is more easily accessible than oil. 24% of uranium resources are in Australia and 9% in Canada.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

  • Waste: High level radioactive waste is very dangerous. It lasts for tens of thousands of years before decaying to safe levels. If there is to be a "nuclear renaissance", a sophisticated method of storing the waste for this period of time must be designed. This point itself has sparked a surprising number of debates. For example, how do you write "danger" on a concrete box, when in 5,000 years the word "danger" may no longer exist?
  • Proliferation: Some forms of nuclear reactor, known as "breeder" reactors produce plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. There are other reactors which do not have this problem, but it is another issue which must be addressed before the possibility of a nuclear future can be taken seriously.
  • Terrorism: While the chances of a modern reactor exploding like Chernobyl are near zero, it is quite possible for intervention to have quite horrific results. Nuclear plants would be very tempting targets to anyone wanting to disrupt the power supply and devastate an entire region in one foul swoop.
  • Cost: Nuclear plants are very expensive to run. I'm not an economist, but I believe nuclear plants are, like most other things, cheaper in bulk. Most of the cost comes from the initial building of the plant; the running costs are comparatively low.

I will be adding sources about these follow topic how a nuclear power works?

Why nuclear power sustainable?

Source 1

Join now!

Nuclear power stations work in pretty much the same way as fossil fuel-burning stations, except that a "chain reaction" inside a nuclear reactor makes the heat instead.

The reactor uses Uranium rods as fuel, and the heat is generated by nuclear fission: neutrons smash into the nucleus of the uranium atoms, which split roughly in half and release energy in the form of heat.

Carbon dioxide gas or water is pumped through the reactor to take the heat away, this then heats water to make steam

Modern nuclear power stations use the same type of  and generators as conventional power ...

This is a preview of the whole essay