[1] What is Nuclear Power?

Nuclear power is energy contained in atoms. This energy can be released as heat
from a chain reaction in a radioactive element such as uranium. Nuclear power
stations use this heat to produce steam, which drives turbines to generate
electricity. According to the illustrative scenario published by the Committee on
Climate Change, nuclear might deliver around 40% of the UK generation mix in
2030.

Nuclear fuel is made from uranium ore. This concentrates the naturally occurring
radiation and enables nuclear power stations to generate electricity. End-of-life
decommissioning is a vital part of waste handling and safety in the nuclear
energy industry. Decommissioning is the process of dismantling and
decontaminating a nuclear facility for example, a nuclear power station, a
uranium mine, a waste storage or reprocessing plant, or a military site at the
end of its operational life.(when a company decides to shut down there nuclear
power plant)
A site can only be considered fully decommissioned once all radioactive material
has either been removed or decayed to a level safe enough that the site can be
made available for other uses. Depending on the decommissioning strategy
used, this can take decades. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and the Environment Agency (or
Scottish Environment Protection Agency) are the bodies responsible for
overseeing, regulating and approving decommissioning activities in the UK.
[2]

Worldwide map of nuclear power stations and earthquake zones -

















[3]
Nuclear fission is the splitting of atomic nuclei. Nuclear power stations use the fission of
uranium-235 to heat water. Fusion is the joining of atomic nuclei.
Nuclear power stations
A power station makes electricity. Fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) power stations and nuclear (uranium)
power stations all use the same processes to make electricity from heat energy. These are:

1. Fuel
produces
heat, which
is used to boil
water to
make
steam.
2. Steam spins a turbine.
3. Turbine drives a generator and the generator makes electricity.
4. Electricity goes to the transformers to produce the correct voltage.
The only difference between fossil fuel and nuclear power stations is how the water is heated. Fossil
fuel power stations burn a chemical fuel while a nuclear power station uses the fission of uranium
nuclei to generate heat. Fission is another word for splitting. The process of splitting a nucleus is called
nuclear fission.
Uranium is a non-renewable energy resource and, like the fossil fuels, it cannot be replaced once it has
all been used up.











[4] Against: The risks of Nuclear Power and Impacts on the
environment.
Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the
nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste
(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone.
More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has
accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no
permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of
commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory
capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive
a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of
Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.
Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear
reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental
problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of
the worlds uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners
experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory
diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately
100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste
containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These
uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium
mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten
contamination of groundwater water supplies
[5] The government wants to build new nuclear power stations. If their plan
succeeds, it will be at the cost of blocking the real solutions to climate change
and a reliable future energy supply. It will also result in the continued production
of dangerous nuclear waste and an increased risk from terrorism, radioactive
accident and nuclear proliferation.
Climate change
New nuclear power stations would not stop climate change. Even at the most
optimistic build rate - 10 new reactors by 2024 our carbon emissions would
only be cut by four per cent: far too little, far too late. Given the nuclear
industrys poor track record it's highly unlikely that ten reactors could be built
within two decades. The most contemporary example of building a new reactor
is in Finland; just one year into construction, the completion date has been
delayed by 18 months and its costs have spiralled by up to 2 billion Euros over
budget.
Worse still, new investment in nuclear power and its infrastructure will block
development of renewable energy and energy efficiency the real solutions to
climate change.
Radioactive waste
The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times
over. Theres still no safe way to deal with it. The government plans to bury it
deep underground - out of sight, out of mind, for now at least. But no one can
guarantee that this highly radioactive waste won't leak back into the
environment, contaminating water supplies and the food chain. Allowing ten new
reactors to be built would add threefold to the amount of highly radioactive
waste we already have to deal with. This waste will remain dangerous for up to a
million years: an outrageous legacy to leave for many generations to come.
Terrorism
Aside from the risk of a terrorist strike directly onto a nuclear power station, the
nuclear industry transports thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste around the
UK by road, rail and sea. Every week, communities up and down the country are
put at risk from potential radioactive contamination as these trains trundle
through our cities, towns and villages. There are no police or security personnel
on board and there are no local plans in place to deal with an emergency. If a
nuclear waste train was involved in a terrorist attack, tens of thousands of people
could be exposed to cancer causing radiation and whole regions might have to
be evacuated
Safety
Over twenty years since the worlds worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, the human
and environmental consequences are still being suffered internationally. Nuclear
power is inherently dangerous and, despite claims of improvements in safety,
scientists agree that another catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl could still
happen any time, anywhere.
Ironically, climate change itself also threatens the safety of nuclear power
stations; many reactors are built on coastal sites vulnerable to the impacts of sea
level rise, including flooding and erosion.
Cost
The nuclear industry is hugely expensive. The construction and generating costs
of nuclear power are greater than most renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies. Added to these are costs associated with dismantling nuclear
stations and waste disposal. The clean up costs for the UKs existing nuclear
industry and its waste have alone been estimated at up to 100bn. That's
100bn of public money.
[6] Benefits of Nuclear Power
One of the main benefits of nuclear power is that it is an extremely reliable source of power because
most nuclear reactors have a life cycle of 40 years which can be easily extended further for 20 more
years.
Among the many benefits of nuclear power, the main advantage this type of power has over other
methods is that it is a clean way to produce energy as it does not result in the emission of any of
the poisonous gases like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide. In todays world when
pollution of the atmosphere is one of our main worries, an option such as this is definitely
preferable compared to burning of fossil fuels which causes so much of pollution
The disposal of nuclear waste which results during the generation of nuclear power is much easier
because it is just dumped in to a geological site where it decays over a period of time and has no
negative impact on the ecosystem. This turns out to be one of the main benefits of nuclear power
as compared to the chemical waste like arsenic or mercury which refuse to decompose or
poisonous gases which cause global warming, acid rain and smog.
One of the main benefits of nuclear power is that it is an extremely reliable source of power
because most nuclear reactors have a life cycle of 40 years which can be easily extended further for
20 more years.
The main benefits of nuclear power are that it is good, scientific as well as environment friendly
because of which it is being supported by many ecological organizations and environmentalists who
were previously biased against it.
When compared to the fossil fuel waste, the nuclear waste which occurs due to the production of
nuclear power is not only small in quantity but also remains confined so as not to affect anyone in
its surroundings. It has been proved that if a typical family of four uses nuclear power for all its
needs then the waste produced over a period of a lifetime would be as small as a golf ball






Bibliography

Sou
rce
Link Date Time Reliability
(1-least 5-
most)

1
http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/nu
clear

05/10/1
4
8:54a
m
5

2
http://maptd.com/worldwide-map-of-
nuclear-power-stations-and-earthquake-
zones/

05/10/1
4
9:56a
m
4

3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/s
cience/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/fissionrev
1.shtml

05/10/1
4
9;23a
m
5

4
http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-
power-factsheet.html

05/10/1
4
9:56a
m
4

5
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/probl
ems

05/10/1
4
9:56a
m
4

6
http://www.benefitsofnuclearpower.com/

05/10/1
4
9:57a
m
4

7

http://www.channel4.com/news/navigating-
the-energy-maze-whats-the-uks-energy-
future

17/10/1
4
11:23
am
4
8 http://www.channel4.com/news/navigating-
the-energy-maze-whats-the-uks-energy-
future

17/10/1
4
11:43
am
5
9 http://www.canwesavetheworld.com/uk/red
uce-home-energy-use.html
17/10/1
4
11:43
am
4

10 http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=
1045&topic=ukenergychallenge
21/10/1
4
19:22
am
3
11 http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/re
search/socialsciences/nuclearenergyfullrepor
t.pdf
21/10/1
4
19:38
pm
4
12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/718053
9.stm
21/10/1
4
19:38
pm
5




[8] What is the UK's energy future?
How will the UK keep the lights on over the next 50 years, at the same
time as meeting renewables targets? Jim Skea, research director at the
UK Energy Research Centre, looks at the options.

There is a great temptation to think that there is an ideal blueprint for
a secure and sustainable energy future, the role of each technology
mapped out. But there are two problems. First, there is no agreement
on an ideal blueprint. Exxon Mobil's long-term energy vision is very
different from that of Greenpeace.
Second, there is much that we simply do not know. Can we build
nuclear plants to time and cost? Will the costs of renewable energy fall
fast enough so they can be weaned off subsidies? Are members of the
public up for changing their patterns of energy use? Will novel
technologies work? Some uncertainties will be resolved through time
and experience. Others we may have to live with for a long time.
By breaking the energy conundrum into manageable bits, we can pick
our way through the maze. It's helpful to think in terms of different
timescales. Given lead times for implementing policies and getting
technologies in place, 2020 is essentially tomorrow.
We know what has to be done if energy and climate change goals are
to be met. We need to invest in renewable energy, particularly onshore
and offshore wind. Up to 30 per cent of our electricity could come
from renewables by 2020 - if it doesn't, we will fail to meet our
obligations under EU directives.








[9] Reduce home energy use
Most of us are extraordinarily wasteful from an energy perspective, partly
because until recently most of us were unaware of the long term implications.

Decide to be energy economical, or even better, energy frugal, everyone who
does will reduce home energy use and therefore costs and be improving the
world for future generations.

According to Department of
Trade statistics:

61% of UK domestic energy was used for space heating, 23% for water
heating, 13% for lighting and appliances, and 3% for cooking.

[10] Security of supply is vital to the UK, as our own North Sea (UKCS) gas reserves
run out we have to import increasing amounts of gas from overseas.
Additionally, up to one third of UK power generation plant is due to retire by 2020 owing to
age or environmental regulation. New, low carbon power generation must be brought
online to replace this in good time, and backed up, where necessary, with flexible gas to
ensure the lights stay on.
As a country, the UK is committed to targets of reducing carbon emissions by 34% from
1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and as a society we have an obligation to ensure that
energy remains affordable as the economy recovers from the worst recession since the
Second World War.
Centrica is deeply conscious of the cost-of-living challenge facing many of our customers,
and of the responsibility we have to keep millions of Britains homes and businesses warm
and well lit with 80% of homes using gas for heat (a higher percentage than most other
European countries), securing long-term affordable energy supplies is a driving force for
how we do business.
The UK is currently importing around 50% of its energy needs and that proportion could
rise to around 70% by 2035
What we are doing
To ensure energy security for the future, the UK must pursue a diverse energy portfolio to
reduce reliance on one type of energy:
Long-term supply agreements
Centrica is one of the largest investors in energy supplies for the UK, signing long-term
contracts and forging partnerships to compete in the global energy market for the
resources the country needs.
Our strong balance sheet allows us to enter into long-term agreements to ensure the UK is
well supplied. Our commitments to supply gas and power to our UK customers over the
next ten to fifteen years now total around 60bn.


New nuclear stations in the
UK
[11] To reduce the risks for nuclear energy (and other low carbon generators) the
UK Government is going to reform the electricity market, introducing a feed-in tariff with
contracts for differences (FiT with CfD).109This has the potential to fix the nuclear stations
revenues at a level sufficient to cover its costs, regardless of swings in the wholesale price
of power. The feed-in tariffs used for renewable power in Europe (including for small-scale
generators in the UK) pay a set price for all the output from a station, giving it no incentive
to respond to market signals, for example by scheduling maintenance at times of relatively
low demand. The proposed arrangements for nuclear energy aim to preserve some market
signals, in that the stations will have to sell their output into the wholesale market, and will
receive a price reflecting its market value at the time of the sale.

[12] The British government has announced plans to construct a new generation of nuclear
power stations, a move which is likely to revive the long-standing debate over the cost and safety
of nuclear energy.
It will also add to the gathering momentum behind nuclear power, driven by the global need to reduce
carbon emissions, as well as the rising cost of gas and oil.
Here is a look at the economics of the debate.
How much does it cost to build a nuclear power station?
There are few recent examples to draw on, but a new plant being built in Finland gives some
indications.
The Olkiluoto project is Western Europe's first new reactor in a decade and is expected to cost about
2.25bn ($4.5bn), but there have been serious delays there.
Other analysts put the cost of a plant at 1.5bn.
How does that compare with other types of power station?
Gas and coal-fired power stations are much cheaper to build.
RWE Npower is planning a gas-fired power station in the UK for 800m.
The controversial scheme for a coal-fired power station in Kent is expected to cost about 1bn.
So is nuclear power good value for money?
Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build.
But if several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies
of scale - a sort of bulk discount.
But they will still be more expensive to build than conventional power stations. And there are fears that
investment in nuclear will detract from other sources of energy - such as renewable.
So how does nuclear power compete?
Once built, nuclear power plants have advantages.
In a gas-fired plant, the gas alone makes up 80% of the cost of electricity. So firms and consumers are
very exposed to the wholesale price of gas.
But at a nuclear power plant, the fuel is processed uranium, accounting for just 10% of the cost of
production.
One argument given in favour of nuclear is that consumers are less likely to see huge variations in
their energy bills, which have been rising in recent months.
Nuclear power also produces much lower levels of greenhouse gases and the nuclear industry wants
incentives to reflect that.
What are the cost implications of nuclear power?
Germany's E.On, France's EDF, and British Gas parent company Centrica have all showed eagerness to
be involved in the operation of the new nuclear sites, while French-owned Areva, the world's largest
nuclear power group, said it also wanted to build up to six new plants.
Energy companies running the new nuclear power plants will have to pay the costs for
decommissioning existing sites, and pay their share of waste management costs, the government has
said.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be 72bn over 20 years - up from an
estimate two years ago of 56bn.
Critics, such as Greenpeace, say that the bill for building new waste dumps will be a further 21bn and
then 30bn to build the new nuclear power stations.
According to its figures, this equates to just under 250 per household.
It is unclear how much of this will be passed on to consumers through, for example, higher energy
bills.
But firms keen to invest in this area have strongly rejected this argument, saying they will not need
any sort of extra funding.
EDF, for example, has said it is willing to invest in new nuclear power stations in the UK "without
subsidy", to include all the costs of construction, operation, decommissioning and waste disposal.
But it, like other firms, has said this can only happen if the right framework is in place. Ultimately,
firms will only invest if it is competitive with other forms of energy.
Some analysts say public opposition might make some investors reluctant to fund schemes that are
viewed as unpopular.