A Comparison Of Nuclear And Coal Energy Environmental Sciences Essay

Published: 2020-06-13 21:41:05
2052 words
7 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Environmental Sciences

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Nuclear and coal discharged power Stationss provided about half of the electricity generated in the UK in 2007. Figure 1 shows a dislocation of the parts made by all of the beginnings of fuel used to bring forth electricity in that twelvemonth.
Figure 1: Fuel used for UK electricity coevals on an end product footing in 2007 [ 1 ] .
Coal is an cheap fuel that is comparatively easy to mine and the UK still has big militias. In 2001 the universe militias of recoverable coal were 1083 billion metric tons which is adequate to last over 200 old ages at current World ingestion degrees. [ 2 ] Unlike oil and gas, the bulk of which is concentrated in the politically sensitive country of the Middle East, the largest militias of coal are in North America, Russia, China and India.
Nuclear power Stationss use comparatively little sums of fuel compared to char, so uranium can be easy stock piled. Known uranium stocks are merely plenty for approximately 50 to sixty old ages at current ingestion degrees. However, much of the U is available from less sensitive parts such as Australia, Canada and the United States, { see Appendix 1 } .
Nuclear workss are powered by enriched uranium pellets. To guarantee continuation of electricity supply, up to 100 dozenss of pellets may be stored at each reactor at any clip. Each one inch pellet can bring forth the same sum of energy as one ton of coal [ 3 ] . This is because power station class coal has a calorific value of about 26 GJ/tonne and U has a calorific value of between 420,000 and 672,000 GJ/tonne i.e. about 20,000 times as big. [ 4 ]
The mean thermic efficiency for atomic workss in the UK in 2005 was 38 % [ 5 ] . The newest coal engineering can accomplish about 48 % efficiency [ 6 ] . For comparing, typical efficiencies for the assorted ways of bring forthing electricity in the UK are shown in Appendix 2.
Nuclear and coal discharged power Stationss work in much the same manner. Water is heated to do steam which turns turbines connected to generators which produce electrical power. The difference is that in atomic power Stationss a concatenation reaction is used to do the heat alternatively of firing coal. Nuclear power workss create heat through the fission of U atoms that are split by slow traveling neutrons bring forthing tremendous sums of energy.
Figure 2 shows the basic designs of ( a ) dodo fuel workss and ( B ) atomic workss.
Figure 2 Comparison of typical designs of fossil fuel and atomic workss [ 7 ]
With coal fired Stationss the immediate pollution job is air borne atoms. The ash produced in the burning chamber besides presents a major waste control job because of the immense sums created. For illustration, a 1000MW coal fired station produces about 400,000 metric tons of ash per twelvemonth [ 8 ] . Whereas, 12,000 metric tons of waste is generated by all of the universe ‘s atomic reactors per twelvemonth. [ 8a ]
Nuclear power workss do non bring forth the air pollution associated with coal, but the spent fuel is a risky waste that can stay a radioactive menace for 1000s of old ages. The fact that the atomic station needs a containment edifice to envelop the reactors highlights the possible danger of atomic power. The containment edifice has a strengthened concrete shell lined with steel which acts as a radiation shield to forestall any release of radiation in the event of an accident. It is designed to be strong plenty to defy temblors, aircraft impacts and sabotage efforts.
The three major events that have slowed the advancement of the atomic industry worldwide are the Windscale fire of 1957, the Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown in 1979, and the more serious Chernobyl reactor meltdown in 1986. The incidents showed the demand for a containment edifice because with the Three Mile Island accident the radioactive dust was successfully contained. Whereas, the Chernobyl and Windscale reactors did non hold a containment edifice which resulted in big countries of the environing countryside being contaminated by radioactive dust. The Windscale incident was on a much smaller graduated table than Chernobyl with a thousand times less radioactive Iodine 131 being released. [ 9 ]
In all of the incidents hapless on the job patterns, faulty or unequal equipment and complacence about safety issues were involved. These incidents and the tremendous cost of decommissioning the reactors has meant that for many old ages at that place have been no programs to construct any more atomic reactors in the UK.
Coal fired power workss have been associated with smog, acerb rain and planetary heating.
They besides release metals such as quicksilver, arsenic, Be, Cd, lead and Se which can be deposited on dirt, in lakes and in watercourses where they become long term environmental pollutants.
Gass associated with firing coal include C dioxide, the chief nursery gas blamed for planetary heating and clime alteration ; sulfur dioxide which can do acerb rain ; and N oxides which are responsible for ground-level ozone. Particulate affair, which includes dust, carbon black, nitrates and sulfates is besides emitted doing respiratory jobs and asthma onslaughts.
Natural coal besides contains trace sums of radioactive U and Th. This is non a job until coal is burned bring forthing fly ash, which concentrates the original degrees of U and Th by a factor of 10. Surprisingly, ‘the fly ash emitted by a power works carries into the environing environment 100 times more radiation than a atomic power works bring forthing the same sum of energy ‘ . [ 10 ]
The environmental jobs associated with coal have led to a push for ‘clean coal ‘ steps to restrict emanations and to capture the CO2. For illustration, fluke gas desulphurisation systems can take up 99 % of the sulfur dioxide. The procedure besides produces gypsum which is used in the building industry. Nitrogen oxides are controlled utilizing particular burners which cut down the O supply to the hottest portion of the burning chamber where the coal is burned.
Electrostatic precipitators can take more than 99 % of the particulates from the fluke gas by making a charge on the atoms which are so attracted by aggregation home bases. Fabric filters and wet particulate scrubbers are besides used.
As CO2 is a nursery gas the proposed method is to capture the gas and shop it underground before it can get away to the ambiance. Figure 3 shows an illustrations of how a CO2 gaining control system might be used.
Key
1. CO2 pumped into obsolete coal Fieldss displaces methane which can be used as fuel
2. Carbon dioxide can be pumped into and stored safely in saline aquifers
3. CO2 pumped into oil Fieldss helps keep force per unit area, doing extraction easier
Figure 3 Options for informations gaining control and storage
The construct of C gaining control and storage has been proven by little scale systems but commercially feasible large-scale systems have non yet been developed.
Coal mines can be unsafe and soiled topographic points and unfastened dramatis personae excavation in peculiar can go forth an unpleasant landscape. Coal mineworkers can be affected by pneumonoconiosis, or black lung disease, and emphysema if they breathe in excessively much of the coal dust. Transporting coal by lorry and train from the mine to the power station causes pollution.
As the older coal fired and atomic power Stationss reach the terminal of their utile lives, determinations will hold to be made about their replacing. Should atomic or coal be considered for the following coevals of power Stationss in the UK? In an ideal universe the reply would likely be no ; but in the existent universe the concerns of authoritiess are energy security and supplying a uninterrupted supply of electricity at a sensible monetary value. Therefore, it is likely that one or both will play a important portion in the proviso of base burden electricity for the foreseeable hereafter because feasible options are non yet available.
The instance for atomic power must get down by sing the fact that installed safety systems have non prevented three major atomic accidents in the last 50 old ages. No 1 could give a 100 % confidence that a major catastrophe will non go on in the hereafter ; but the atomic industry has been scrutinised more than any other industry in history and hence the safety steps are as near to state-of-the-art as possible. Progresss in nanotechnology may bring forth better control and feeling devices to farther better safety steps.
In recent old ages ‘while the agreements for storage have proved to be satisfactory and the installations have been operated without major jobs, it is by and large agreed that these agreements are interim, that is, they do non stand for a concluding and lasting solution ‘ . [ 12 ] However, work on atomic transubstantiation, that can potentially cut down the clip that the waste is unsafe from 1000s of old ages to possibly five hundred old ages, [ 8a ] , may do it more toothsome. Nanotechnology research into disassemblers may bring forth applications in atomic risky waste direction.
Coal generated power is a good established engineering that people are familiar with. However, it has a repute for being a dirty industry that can be unsafe for its workers and bring forth a visually unpleasant environment. In recent old ages the clime alteration argument has intensified and coal, which produces the most greenhouse gases of the fossil fuels, has been targeted as a major cause of planetary heating. The efforts to clean up the industry will potentially cut down the job but will be dearly-won and may take many old ages to demo any betterments.
One factor that may work in its favor is the recent discrediting of scientists look intoing clime alteration. Allegations were made that ‘climate scientists had doctored informations to show that worlds are responsible for planetary heating ‘ and ‘the universe ‘s most of import administration for supervising clime alteration claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 without the backup of peer-reviewed research ‘ . [ 11 ] This has allowed advocates of coal fired Stationss to propose that the instance for planetary heating has been overstated and that coal and other dodo fuelled power Stationss may be acceptable after all.
China, India and other developing states are likely to be constructing 100s of coal fired power Stationss in the close hereafter. If the clime alteration anteroom has got it right it would look irresponsible for the UK to add to the job. Furthermore, a new coevals of atomic power Stationss would assist the UK authorities to run into its mark of cutting nursery gas emanations by 80 % by 2050.
There is grounds that determinations are being made within authorities to unclutter the way for new atomic power Stationss. [ ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/27/decc-carbon-calculator } } . The trust on imported gas from some of the universe ‘s most unstable parts is considered unacceptable and favorable remarks associating to atomic power coevals have been made. The most recent grounds is EDF Energy uncovering programs to pass ?1billion in 2011 on new contracts and readying work for the Hinkley Point atomic power station in Somerset. [ ] { 13/02/11 Mail on Sunday Tom McGhie }
After due consideration, I would give probationary support to a revitalized atomic industry in the UK working under the strictest of examination. I would trust that the major technological jobs with the handling of risky atomic waste will be solved in the close hereafter. Besides, if atomic power coevals receives more public credence, research into the fast breeder reactors and the long term end of power from atomic merger may have a encouragement. These developments would ease the waste job and do atomic power more sustainable in the long term.
Appendix 1
Table 1 Known recoverable resources of uranium [ 3a ]
The top portion of the tabular array shows the sensible assured resources ” and inferred resources, ” at cost less than $ 130 per kilogram of U, as of 1 Jan 2005. These are the estimated resources in countries where geographic expedition has taken topographic point. There is besides 1.3 million dozenss of low uranium sitting about in reserves, a byproduct of old uranium activities.
Appendix 2
Source – Eurelectric
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read