Do we need more nuclear power stations built?

Question

And what are the advantages and disadvatges of nuclear power?

Answer 1

DEPENDS ON HOW THE COUNTRY GROWS MORE PEOPLE= MORE HOMES= MORE FACTORIES = MORE ELECTRICITY= MORE POWER STATIONS

Answer 2

Nuclear power is the way forward as far as I see it, it is the only energy source that can meet Britain's energy needs, gives no carbon emmisions and is sustainable in the long term. In my mind the nuclear industry has a bad reputation it doesn't deserve. Chernobyl was a freak incident in a badly run soviet power station and the problem with nuclear waste has been sterotyped. There is an entire industry built around disposing nuclear waste and Britain is actually at the heart of it, taking in waste from other countries anyways. I think the new generation of power stations should be built in the same areas as their predecessors. The communities there are already used to the industry and adapted to it. Those positions were also chosen for good reasons last time, such as being close to the coast and to the water that is needed for cooling. The local economies are reliant on the industry staying there. I live in West Cumbria, not all that far from the Sellafield site. Alot of people I know are employed there but the plant is winding down and being decommisioned. The decommisioning will last for years so it is not a short term problem but in the long term it would be a disaster for the area if the industry moved elsewhere.

Answer 3

Yes and no. We need more nuclear power stations because they provide a lot more energy than other ways of producing. However building powers stations causes a lot of environmental destruction..that's even before they are working. They do cost a lot of money and have a limited life expectancy...so you need to keep building. There is also the issue of waste disposal...it takes an enormous amount of years for that stuff to be safe and unfortunately we haven't created containers that last that long....future generations are going to love what we're leaving them!
We're addressing the wrong issue....we should all be thinking of using less rather than cope with the demand.
Plus we shouldn't try to produce such large amounts from one place, we should produce locally for local needs. In Scotland there is no shortage of wind...each house should have a windturbine on the roof. The reason why we are not using the resources we already have, with the technology we have is because there is no big money to be made that way.....

Answer 4

we need to replace the old reactors that are past their safe usable dates, however big companys in the pwer industry have been dropping money in a big pot for sometime and are using this to devolp clean burning technologies.

Cant remember where but in the uk a brand ne power station is being built, and its a coal fired station, with a super critical boiler and clean coal technologies to restrict the amount of crap that will be produced.

Most coal stations have had their lives extended for at least another 15 years time, if they are equipped with flu gas desulphuristaion equipment, apparently the next stage is to bolt on a bloody great catalytic converter and spray ammonia over the flu gas, taking out more inpurities.

Nuclear, takes roughly 10 years to build a new station, you have to get rid of the waste, they are safer and run in the under our legistaltion they will not have a repeat of chernobyl due to different style of reactors and constraints. nuclears cleaner on emissions as its using heat created from the reactor and fuel rods to heat the water to turn the steam turbine rather than burning stupid amounts of coal and gas.

did you know it actually costs the power stations a little over 1.8p to produce one unit of electricity, how much do you buy yours for?

Answer 5

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy known to man (assuming the plant was designed properly and no radiation leaks occur.)

Reactors built back in the seventies had issues with the fact that they used uranium rods and used graphite rods as the moderator. The problems occurred if the rods got stuck or if the coolant system failed.

In several other countries that use nuclear power, they use a different kind of reactor, called a pebble-bed reactor that doesn't suffer from the same problems as rob-based reactors.

For further reading, see wikipedia.

Answer 6

The advantages, saving resources, the disadvantages= nuclear waste and the danger of meltdowns and or terrorists. My advice to the world,,,,come on,,,SOLAR energy,,but NO! that would destroy the companies making money on us while destroying this planet and the human race eventually.

Answer 7

Advantages: no CO2.

Disadvantages, very dangerous material can get into the hands of terrorists such as President Bush, PM Blair or Israel.

Conclusion, Iran to be nuked by Israel, I can't see further than that at the moment.

Answer 8

They remain the cleanest way of producing large levels of electricity. Wind farms and other hippy clap trap, even if we covered the land in hemp made wind turbines and wore daisies in our hair, still wouldn't produce enough without undermining our industry and way of life.

The disadvantages are: nuclear waste, though our processing and handling of it is really very good now, and the threat of terrorism and reactor catastrophe. However, we face environmental disaster through global warming anyway. I say bring on the nuke stations until we find a better way.

Answer 9

Well, if you are concerned with greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power plants would be a big help.

Answer 10

No because there are so many other options...wind power, hydro electricity...
Advantages its supposedly "green"
Disadvantages we're all going to die if the scientists stuff up or terrorists decide to blow it up