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 stations.
In Britain, nuclear power stations are often built on the coast, and use sea water for cooling the steam ready to be pumped round again. This means that they don't have the huge "cooling towers" seen at other power stations.
The reactor is controlled with "control rods", made of boron, which absorb neutrons. When the rods are lowered into the reactor, they absorb more neutrons and the fission process slows down. To generate more power, the rods are raised and more neutrons can crash into uranium atoms.
Ref 1:
Published: Updated Oct 23, 2009
Date Accessed: 14th July 2009
Green: Scientific Evidence/data
Red: Opinion/views of the author
The reliability of the source is reliable as it does contain science knowledge and background information on the working of nuclear power, however doesn’t have scientist evidence. This is a good source as it explains what nuclear power is and how it is produced and the steps that are followed to produce energy, however it doesn’t explain why the government should invest in a long term use of of nuclear power it only states how it is used and doesn’t give evidence for the use of it in the UK. 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. This shows that the way in which energy is produced is very much the same ways in which fossil fuel power stations are run meaning that when transferring from one method to the other it will be easily done.
Source 2
Nuclear power plants get go-ahead
The go-ahead has been given for a new wave of UK nuclear power stations.
Industry secretary Alistair Darling told MPs nuclear power needed to be part of the mix of energy supply for the UK over the next 40 years.
The Conservatives say nuclear power should only be a "last resort". The Liberal Democrats accuse ministers of "surrendering" to the nuclear lobby.
Tony Blair says new nuclear power stations will reduce future reliance on imports and help tackle climate change.
In a Commons statement on the Energy Review, Mr Darling said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals.
"It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs."
"Safety and security" would be "paramount" with nuclear plants, he promised.
"Nuclear does mean we can generate electricity without carbon emissions. It does provide a consistency of energy which wind power cannot," he said.
Mr Darling stressed that "a mix of energy supply is essential and we should not be over dependent on one source".
The plans would help meet the government's target of cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, he said.
And they would ensure the UK had secure energy supplies rather than relying increasingly on foreign gas imports.
The review also proposes:
- That electricity companies provide 20% of energy from renewables - up from the current 15%
- Storing carbon dioxide in old oil fields - the UK is working with Norway to develop this
- New incentives to make homes more energy efficient and to cut energy waste by businesses
- Measures to cut the 7% of electricity currently used by domestic appliances left on standby
- Encouraging smaller scale electricity generators, and combined heat and power plants, to be sited close to where the power is used
For the Conservatives, shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said Mr Darling's statement contained "no real policies, no real action, no realdecisions".
He said the review showed Mr Blair was "out on a limb" in his backing for new nuclear power stations - a position, he claimed, that was not shared by the Cabinet.
Fresh look
Edward Davey, the Lib Dems' trade and industry spokesman, warned: "By caving into the nuclear industry lobby, you have destroyed the possibility of cross-party consensus."
London Mayor Ken Livingstone said it was "a colossal mistake" to head down the nuclear path again.
"We need a solution to the climate change that protects the environment rather than threatens it, and one that does not literally cost the earth," said Mr Livingstone.
Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor said: "Alistair Darling has today led the UK down a dirty and dangerous path, which of a fresh round of astronomically expensive nuclear power stations."
An Energy White Paper in 2003 said better efficiency and investment in renewable forms of energy was the way ahead for the UK.
But the prime minister ordered a policy review last November, saying a fresh look was needed at how the UK could ensure it had a secure energy supply and meet its targets for fighting global warming.
The review has been criticised for purely "rubber stamping" Mr Blair's own wish for developing nuclear.
But the prime minister told BBC Two's Newsnight: "If we're going to go from being self-sufficient in gas to importing it, if prices are rising, if we know that climate change is an even more serious problem than we thought a few years ago, how can we take nuclear out of the mix?"
During a visit to an offshore wind farm near Whitstable, Kent, Mr Blair said he wanted to see renewables grow by five times in the next 15 years.
"It's not a question of either/or - it's everything that's got to be done to make a difference," he said.
As well as opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the nuclear power proposals have also come under fire from a number of Labour MPs.
Former environment minister Michael Meacher asked: "Why are we going down the nuclear route at all? Nuclear is more expensive and decommissioning costs are enormous."
Members of SERA, the Labour environment campaign, said nuclear power could not contribute to tackling climate change over the next 10 years.
Published: Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 21:28 GMT 22:28 UK
Date Accessed: 14th July 2009
Green: Scientific Evidence/data
Red: Opinion/views of the author
This source is very reliably as is from the BBC website and quotations from the primistister and Member of Parliament and gives an over view of what energy produce in the UK. This source gives the parliaments plans on how they plan to produce energy in the UK. In a Commons statement on the Energy Review, Mr Darling said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals.
This shows that the government are planning to use more nuclear power in the future as it follows the renewable plan for the future country.
The source also gives background information how energy produced.
Source 3
Nuclear power - safe or not?
In 1995 John G Collier, the then head of Nuclear Electric plc, delivered a discourse at the Royal Institution of Great Britain entitled "Nuclear Power Plant Safety - What's the Problem?"
It was a good show, liberally scattered with demonstrations in the tradition of the RI, and his conclusion was that NO problems remained.
Thousands of trained scientists, (he himself was a chemical engineer), had considered the issues, developed the computer models and implemented the 'multiple, fail-to safe-systems' that meant that nuclear safety could now be safely relied on.
One thing missing from the discourse, however, was a lovely demonstration designed to illustrate 'multiple, fail-to safe-systems'.
An old Russell Hobbs electric kettle had been brought along which incorporated these principles; the plug had a standard fuse to protect from faults in electrical insulation, the switch on the side had a temperature sensor that tripped when the water boiled, the heating element would, ultimately, melt if it got too hot, and finally it included a safety feature I'd not been aware of before.
In the socket of the kettle was a sprung loaded pin, depressed when the lead was first inserted. If the kettle ever became too hot this pin was released and would physically eject the lead.
During rehearsals the empty kettle was placed on the lecture bench and turned on. No water meant no boiling water, so we sat back and waited for the lead ejection system to kick in before the element melted, and waited, and waited.
Eventually the leatherette bench cover began to smoke and one of the Nuclear Electric safety officers stepped in to pull the plug out of the mains. (It was subsequently established that, in transport, one of the pins in the socket had been bent thereby jamming the socket into the kettle.)
The demonstration was replaced by the kettle being used to make a cup of tea as the lecturer described the inherent safety of 'multiple, fail-to safe-systems'.
If you look very closely at the video of the lecture (available at www.vega.org.uk ) you might just be able to see the ring of disfigured bench covering that I had to work with for the next 2 years.
I left that evening struck by the fact that none of those involved seemed to appreciate the irony. As far as they were concerned it was a demonstration that hadn't worked. As far as I was concerned, it was a successful demonstration of how people can hide uncomfortable facts that don't suit their interests.
The British Government is currently considering how we should meet our energy needs over the next 50 years and, as part of this process, over a thousand British citizens recently met as part of a consultation exercise to establish what we, the people, feel about the future of nuclear power in the UK.
This consultation process is one of many that seem to be going on these days; 'consultation' is as much the buzzword of our time as 'transparency' and 'openness'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3315129/Nuclear-power-.-.-.-whats-the-problem.html
By Dr Bryson Gore
Published: 5:00PM GMT 20 Nov 2007
Date Accessed: 14th July 2009
This source is reliable as is comes from a broad sheet newspaper and is provides factual information. Eventually the leatherette bench cover began to smoke and one of the Nuclear Electric safety officers stepped in to pull the plug out of the mains. (It was subsequently established that, in transport, one of the pins in the socket had been bent thereby jamming the socket into the kettle.) This shows that neclear power can be easily encoperated into the society.
In conclusion I personally think that the government shouldnt invest in more money into nuclear power as there are seriour health risk when things go wrong. However, nuclear power is a very affiantent way to produce energy that can be used in any weather.
Bibliography
Ref 1: