Introduction

[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 asuranium.Nuclear power stationsuse 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 stationsA 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 changeNew 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 wasteThe 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.TerrorismAside 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 evacuatedSafetyOver 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.CostThe nuclear industry is hugely expensive. Theconstruction and generating costs of nuclear power are greater than most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Added to these are costs associated withdismantling 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

SourceLinkDateTimeReliability(1-least 5-most)

1http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/nuclear

05/10/148:54am5

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

05/10/149:56am4

3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/fissionrev1.shtml

05/10/149;23am5

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

05/10/149:56am4

5http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

05/10/149:56am4

6http://www.benefitsofnuclearpower.com/

05/10/149:57am4

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

17/10/1411:23am4

8http://www.channel4.com/news/navigating-the-energy-maze-whats-the-uks-energy-future

17/10/1411:43am5

9http://www.canwesavetheworld.com/uk/reduce-home-energy-use.html

17/10/1411:43am4

10http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=1045&topic=ukenergychallenge 21/10/1419:22am3

11http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/research/socialsciences/nuclearenergyfullreport.pdf 21/10/1419:38pm4

12http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7180539.stm 21/10/1419:38pm5

[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 useMost 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 2035What we are doingTo 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 agreementsCentrica 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.