A Nuclear Environment

I am hearing on the news that they are building nuclear zones soon, and people are saying that the gas they produce is good for the environment. Someone tell me why?

The gas they produce is not technically GOOD for the environment. Nuclear power plants only produce water vapour as a gas. This pretty much makes no difference to the environment.  The only problem is that after the nuclear process has happened there is left over nuclear waste that takes over 100 years to become safe to handle. The storing of used nuclear materials is difficult. It has been debated what should be done with it many times. Burying it, Burying it under the ocean and blasting it into space have all been discussed.

Claiming that the gasses produced from nuclear power stations are carbon free is a complete hoax. The process of mining the radioactive material, enriching it to a usable standard and just transporting the stuff are all carbon intensive.

And of course a nuclear explosion would be devastating, no-one wants another Chernobyl.

Water vapour is actually the WORST type of gas to be released as it increases the greenhouse effect loads more than carbon dioxide does. Also, there is only enough nuclear fuel left to supply the world for another 8 years.

bigwind147:

Water vapour is actually the WORST type of gas to be released as it increases the greenhouse effect loads more than carbon dioxide does.

REALLY?  Have you got any reference sits for this?

SO if we all turn to hydrogen powered vehicles is that going to be even worse? (they only emit water vaopur - so I understand) 

My only reference for this is my Physics teacher. When term starts, I'll try to get him to post some jargon here.

Do you think Nuclear Power stations have improved much since they were first invented? The french stations are always heralded as cleaner and more efficient. If more stations are to be built in Britain they maybe built with french technology.

bigwind147:

My only reference for this is my Physics teacher. When term starts, I'll try to get him to post some jargon here.

OK here is the reply, water vapour is the worst greenhouse gas in that it absorbs the most infra-red energy and then re-emits the most back into the planet, but the ammount of heat that it traps varies, depending on the CO2 content of the atmosphere. At the moment it is only about 0.3%, but if there is even a small increase, then the greenhouse effect will be amplified massively!!!

I hope this is a good enough explanation.

hi bigwind, 

humn... So the effect is dependant on a mixture of watervapour and CO2? 

I did a little reasearch and found this article about water vapour which helps explain it a little.

Surely this has so many implications? 

Dont we make electricity by boiling water?  In a nuclear reactor or coal powered station.

Link for source of image:  

SO is this process twice as bad?

Yes, definitley.

Go Wind!!!

Go solar!!!

 Have you seen the latest in the news? £80bn plan to build 7,000 wind turbines off our coast. Locations put forward are 10 miles off the coast of Dorset and  South Devon. Dartmouth and Weymouth, East Sussex, Cardigan Bay in Wales, The Irish Sea off Cumbria and the North Sea off Norfolk. These will possibly produce up to 33gigawatts. By comparison Britiain's existing coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power stations produce up to 75gigawatts. We mustn't become too reliant on the power of wind to supply us with all the energy we need. Obviously because you can't rely on the wind speed 100% of the time so 33gigawatts is an estimated output, but it's a start.

£80bn is a lot money.Surely subsidising installing solar power in all buildings is an obvious thing to do to reduce our reliance on the electricty in the first place along with all the other proven devises that reduce consumption. It will reduce fuel bills for all, the business sector and the public.

Reduce the need and you reduce the amount needed..

 I totally agree with sibsidising every house to have solar panels surely this is a logical step foraward. We were recently looking at the cost of solar panles and they are pretty good value. ranging from £200 for  a small panel. how many panels would we need do you think for each house?

I think we should also be looking more into tidal power as well, such as obvious choice?