If the money spent building the new nuclear power plants
was instead used to install solar panels on houses in
the UK, how many homes would this cover and how would
the power output compare?"
2007-02-20 03:33:59 · 9 answers · asked by Andy S 2 in Environment
Even if nuclear power was more (and I suspect..but don't know, that it is) Nuclear comes with waste problems. Also there is no industry around that is 100% accident free...an accident with nuclear can have devastating consequences. My vote: Solar with energy effecient products and reduction in usage.
2007-02-20 03:41:37 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We need both for security of supply. They both have advantages and disadvantages. From the Governments point of view it's the cost per MWhr that is the important number. Economies of scale mean that large Power Stations are capable of producing power at a fraction of the cost of small localised sources and comparing Power Stations, Nuclear looks very impressive (see the Link(1) below).
Perhaps another way of looking at this is to ask who can afford to install nuclear and solar panel energy sources. Only Governments can build Reactors - citizens can choose to install solar panels (at their own cost). It would be nice if grants were available (and some probably are) for the installation of solar panels, but personally I'm hesitant to take that step as I believe that at present the costs of having panels and their maintence is prohibative and their longevity is in question. Have a look at Link 2 because this doesn't look too sensible a move with current technology.
Assuming the information in these Links is correct you'd have to go for nuclear.
2007-02-20 10:05:41 · answer #2 · answered by Moebious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fusion is the way to go: clean, safe, but expensive untill they get it at an industrial level. Solar power is also great, but preety useles in many places. It's used to warm the water and in some very sunny places to create electric energy. Also other sources would be wind, waves, and why ignore river dams, they create preety much energy,. most of our countrie's and many others and it's clean. There are energy sources everywhere, you just have to use the right ones in the right places, and they are most of the time because noone wants to spend money on a nuclear plant in the middle of the desert or to use n-teen hundred miles of solar panels in alasca for 1 volt per year ;)
2007-02-20 04:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by Mihai 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every home in the country and we would all freeze to death in the winter. Likewise with wind mills during those freezing cold still winter days.
Our local coal fired power station burns coal from the Urals and then shipped by rail to the Baltic and then by sea. Was Thatcher being particularly stupid in closing the pits as we now seem to rely on Russia for not only gas but coal .It's an awful thought that Putin could turn both off at any time
2007-02-20 04:35:59 · answer #4 · answered by Sparks 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think nuclear power is the way to go - it's clean and cheap. We just have to work out a way to dispose of the waste safely. Solar panels wouldn't give us enough power to run our homes, especially in cloudy areas like Scotland.
2007-02-20 03:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by MinaF 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Solar panels are good secondary sources of energy except in dessert areas. In the UK, a solar panel would add a little.
2007-02-20 03:39:09 · answer #6 · answered by science teacher 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is just a guess, but I think you probably could pave every square inch of the UK with solar panels for the same price...but I am not sure you would get as much electricity out of it.
2007-02-20 04:10:07 · answer #7 · answered by Shawn D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Power (watts per £) for solar heating is nowhere near as good as nuclear.
2007-02-20 03:53:19 · answer #8 · answered by R.E.M.E. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I enjoyed my time over there but it was cloudy most of the time.
2007-02-20 03:43:40 · answer #9 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋