Nuclear power stations: good or bad? Discuss....?

Question

I know there are good points and bad points, shall we hash it out?

Answer 1

One thing to point out before I start, is that ANY form of power generating source, has a negative impact on the environment. But I'll go to nuclear power first, then I'll do a brief ones on the other form just for additional information.

Nuclear power station
````````````````````````````````````
The disadvantages are namely:
- an isolated location (i.e suitable location);
that is far enough with at least a 5km buffer zone from the nearest human settlement.

- the inherent risk of a nuclear melt-down accident;
the melt-down of the reactor core due to the temperature exceeding its MCOT (Maximum Core Operating Temperature), resulting in an uncontrolled explosion.

- storage of the nuclear waste material;
like coal fired power plants, which emits carbon dioxide and other forms of gaseous toxins, nuclear power plants leaves behind the spent nuclear waste, in the form of nuclear energy rods. While no longer suitable for energy production purposes, it still has a significant amount of power to pollute the environment through radiation. Storing them away requires specialised containment vessels and facilities. Because the half-life (time for the isotope to decay away) is generally over 1000 years at a minimum, proper storage, monitoring and containment of both the waste and the facilities is a permanent effort.

Now for the advantages:
- the overall footprint of the nuclear power plant is smaller than that of a coal fired power plant, and with modern advances and minituraziation, a lot of these equipment are small yet more efficient than their predecessors.

- less amount of pollution produced compared to coal or oil fired power plants, the most significant by-products being steam and water, hence removing the need to install smog and air scrubbers, reducing long term maintenance cost.

- the same amount (weight) of the fuel (nuclear vs. coal / oil) produces huge differences in the amount of energy being produce over the same period of time, with the former lasting at least 8 times longer than the latter before needing a fresh resupply.

- overall cost for the consumer is lower, as the lack of additional environmental equipment and maintenance is passed to the consumers in the form of savings, hence driving down utility bills by at least 0.4% (might not seem a lot, until you do the calculation for a whole year's worth of usage).

The United States has the most experience in operating nuclear power plants for decades, not only in the form of civil nuclear power plants but also in the form of military power plants like those found aboard its submarines and aircraft carriers.

Safety is a paramount importance and the technologies in place are the best in the world, and even more efficient innovations and equipment are being applied currently on a daily basis. The actual possibility of a catastrophic accident is in the range of 0.0001 for every 280 years of operation.
===============================================

Now, to other forms of cleaner power generating sources:
1) Wind farms;
Utilizes the wind currents to generate electricity, the cons are:

- less than 12% of the locations on Earth are deemed suitable for wind farms, making it expensive to invest in initially,

- disruptive to the wildlife, both resident and migratory (especially seasonal birds passing through). Of the 12% of the locations mentioned earlier, 8% of those are right along the migratory paths of these birds.

- wind farm are also extremely noisy, especially in huge numbers, and can only operate in a limited range of wind speeds. Plus the size of the farm itself means that both human and nature inhabitants need to be relocated.

2) Tidal farms;
Utilizes the movement of ocean or large uninhibited bodies of water to generate electrical power through wave movements, the cons are:

- large area is needed, at least up to 100 miles out to open waters and a depth of 300 ft is necessary before construction is possible. Up to 70 miles of shoreline need to be isolated to facilitate unobstructed operations.

- anchorlines, weights, and underwater nets have to be erected to ensure the equipment are not damaged by both marine life and man-made objects. The underwater nettings are also considered a major source of disturbance for marine lifeforms due to the risk of entanglements and isolation from certain feeding areas for the marine creatures.

3) Hydro-electric Dams;
Utilizes the movement of water in stored containment, released to a lower elevation, thus converting stored potential into kinetic energy to generate power through the turbines housed in the dam. The cons are:

- highly disruptive to riverine and the surrounding natural habitats. Rivers carry natural sediments in the riverbed. The natural flow of the river ensures it is distributed to the lower elevations of the river line, thus providing both a food source and natural fertilization. The dam effectively acts as a net and a bowl, both trapping these beneficial sediments and containing them at the upper reaches of the dam and not allowing it to pass through.

- the construction process permanently alters the shape of the natural terrain, causing disruption to the immediate surroundings. Food source are abruptly cut off or isolated, or safe havens for animals no longer reachable, making them more suseptible to fall prey to hunters. River based intdustries on the lower river might be affected by the flow of the river.

Answer 2

OK - I'll start with bad - everyone knows about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl - the possibility of a melt down and catastrophic release of radiation, and the contamination that follows. Then there's the question of what to do with the left over waste....burying it is only a partial solution but not a perfect one. Then there is regional opposition - NIMBY - "not in my back yard" that will have to be overcome, + the general ignorance about nuclear power and how much safer it has become....

Now onto the positives....nuclear plants being designed and built today (in other countries - none have been built in the US since the 80's) are many times safer and operate differently than old plants like TMI. Chances of a meltdown are almost nil. In addition to that, the world is fast running out of fossil fuel - oil is expensive, as is natural gas, and coal is of course very dirty and creates smog. Plans that are afoot to run cars on hydrogen will be negated if that electrical power to create the hydrogen comes from burning oil - it kind of defeats the purpose.
Also, nuclear power creates no emmissions of any kind - no need for expensive particulate and smog scrubbing devices in smoke stacks at power plants that burn coal and oil are needed.
The US is again looking at building new nuclear plants, but there will still be opposition.

Answer 3

Good points:

1) Clean fuel.

2) Not dependent on fossil fuel.



Bad points:

1) Catastrophic and possibly irreversible event can occur from an accident.

2) Fuel waste has a long radioactive life and cannot be safely disposed of.

In my opinion the bad points outweigh the good, that is why nobody wants a nuclear plant in their backyard. Renewable energy is a great option to get us away from fossil fuels with little or no pollution and no huge environmental hazard should something go wrong.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Nuclear power stations: good or bad? Discuss....?
I know there are good points and bad points, shall we hash it out?

Answer 5

I think you were meant to answer that question. Nuclear power is contoversial. It isn't hard to find resources to that effect on the internet. Try Greepeace. With respect to it making a comeback try thinking along the lines of: a. Global warming. b. The geopolitical problems which come with importing all your energy from politically unstable and unfriendly countries.

Answer 6

Good points: very safe, emissions free, can help our weapons program.

Bad points: waste NEVER goes away.

Unless we can find a way to shoot the waste towards the Sun completely safely, we're stuck with waste materials that have half lives of millions or billions of years, effectively forever. Given these wastes could be used to make a "dirty bomb" we need to spend money guarding them in perpetuity.

Answer 7

No greenhouse gasses.

Safer than ever.

Growing engergy demands globally.

Oil is in under the sand of folks who don't exactly love us.

We need many more nuclear power plants ASAP.

Answer 8

hot dry rocks produce just as much energy

you dig a hole a very very deep hole
then you pour down some water and it shoots up another hole as super hot steam and spins the turbines
cool the steam and throw it back down the hole again

we are starting to do this in Australia
we would replace all our coal plants if the government was not licking the coal industry and the uranium industry's balls

Answer 9

Awesomely good! that would reduce air pollution. then the politicians would shut up.