Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Views on Nuclear Power Plants for the production of electricity. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm currently writing an essay for a course of mine, I've been researching for months. I had started researching with the thought in mind that nuclear power plants were very dangerous and harmful to the environment. My journey led to me actually reaching a conclusion where my positive notes outweighed the negatives. It is based on Nuclear Power Plants and advantages and disadvantages based on electricity production. I would love to hear from different people with different perspectives. I've written more than I'm supposed to however I'm reconstructing and modifying.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear power is ****ing stupid holy **** why would anybody support it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stroma)
    Nuclear power is ****ing stupid holy **** why would anybody support it

    They support it because they know with the shift away from fossil fuels its the cheapest and more importantly, the most reliable form of power generation out there.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Fossil fuels are both polluting and unsustainable. Renewable sources tend to be both expensive and inefficient. There aren't really many other options, and of them nuclear fission is by far the best compromise for generating the next few decade's worth of electricity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CemCakantemur)
    I'm currently writing an essay for a course of mine, I've been researching for months. I had started researching with the thought in mind that nuclear power plants were very dangerous and harmful to the environment. My journey led to me actually reaching a conclusion where my positive notes outweighed the negatives. It is based on Nuclear Power Plants and advantages and disadvantages based on electricity production. I would love to hear from different people with different perspectives. I've written more than I'm supposed to however I'm reconstructing and modifying.

    Nuclear power is the way forward, it is a cheap, sustainable and secure. While a large investment is required at the start of the project, it pays back seriously in the long term, these reactors can have lives of 60+ years (and with the improvement in the technology this will probably rise), renewables particularly wind turbines have relatively short life spans (10 years) and are also very expensive. There is huge amounts of Uranium left (particularly U-238 which we could have up 5 billion years worth left on Earth), so it won't be running out any time soon. Also nuclear power can operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, not just when the wind blows or the sun is out.

    The classic myths made made up by anti-nuclear NIMBYs to try and suppress nuclear are that:
    1. It costs a lot. However in the long term it works out cheaper than renewables and as the technology improves so will the cost efficiency.
    2. It produces loads of waste. New breeder reactors can convert waste to products with relatively short half lives.
    3. It is unsafe. The new generation of reactors are unbelievably safe, if the exact same thing that happened a Fukushima happened to a new reactor it would simply shut itself down.

    In short: nuclear power is the way forward and the government should invest in it today to secure the future energy security of the country, particularly with North Sea Oil running out and the increasing global demand for energy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Brilliant if it's run properly, which it is here. Reliable, not intermittent and carbon free- only problem is the waste.

    But if they can crack fusion we really are sorted!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stroma)
    Nuclear power is ****ing stupid holy **** why would anybody support it
    Because its clean, safe, reliable, no more expensive than other power generation methods and the resource it depends on is in no danger of running out?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Brilliant if it's run properly, which it is here. Reliable, not intermittent and carbon free- only problem is the waste.

    But if they can crack fission we really are sorted!
    Fusion mate, they cracked fission back in the 1940's...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ollie113)
    Fusion mate, they cracked fission back in the 1940's...
    ****!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Moar fusion <3
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stroma)
    Nuclear power is ****ing stupid holy **** why would anybody support it
    The main reason people don't like Nuclear Power is due to a lack of understanding. They're far more sustainable than fossil fuels and probably the best solution and most efficient to the energy crisis that is possible at the moment.
    Nuclear reactors are actually quite safe, and have many safety precautions around them, as well as being a good long term investment.
    However, the downsides are the waste products; the low level waste is sold for use in schools etcetera, and the medium level waste is often used in hospitals and university research.
    The high level waste is buried in deep underground trenches in cased in concrete. Unfortunately it will take hundreds or in some cases thousands of years for these waste products to reach a safe level of activity. However, there is a plus side to this; Britain enjoys being one of the most geologically stable countries in the world, and since other countries need geologically stable places to store their waste, other countries often pay Britain to store their waste for them.
    To conclude, Nuclear Fission is most probably the most likely solution to the energy crisis of current times, however, like fossil fuels, it also can only be a temporary fuel source.
    For starters we only have a finite amount of uranium or plutonium which are suitable and of enough mass for use in nuclear reactors. And also we cannot indefinitely just bury nuclear waste. Also, many countries would be internationally slated if they built nuclear reactors. Building a fission station shows that you have the capability to build a nuclear bomb, as well as being able to use the fission reactor to enrich uranium so that it is weapons grade.
    What we really need is nuclear fusion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Brilliant if it's run properly, which it is here. Reliable, not intermittent and carbon free- only problem is the waste.

    But if they can crack fusion we really are sorted!
    The major issue being every country claims its run properly, but how could you possibly know? I'm sure Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island all gave the impression to the communities around them that they were being run properly.

    While I think the prospect of a major nuclear accident in Western Europe is close to zero, its rather childish to dismiss those who fear an accident as stupid or uneducated (I know you didn't but many people do). However safe it is, the risk will never reach zero.

    Also, if its as cheap as people are claiming it is, why will no company build them in the UK without major subsidies?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    The major issue being every country claims its run properly, but how could you possibly know? I'm sure Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island all gave the impression to the communities around them that they were being run properly.

    While I think the prospect of a major nuclear accident in Western Europe is close to zero, its rather childish to dismiss those who fear an accident as stupid or uneducated (I know you didn't but many people do). However safe it is, the risk will never reach zero.
    It was known that they were far from the best run power plants, they were very old too. And it's worth remembering that nobody has died and nobody needs to be made ill as a result of Japan's disaster.

    In the UK ours are all designed so well the the risk of accidents is incredibly close to zero, as you said. It's a tough one to call but I do think it's worth the tiny risk, global warming will kill many more.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Anybody opposed to nuclear power is just a scare-mongering tree-hugger. There are no practical reasons to oppose nuclear power when weighed against its benefits.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.