Is generating electricty using nuclear energy cheaper than other conventional methods? including disposal cst?
105991
I believe in the long run it will be cheaper than fossil fuel based applications. Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive to build and control and the deposit of waste costs a lot. But in the long term, i think the costs saved from cleaning up pollution caused by fossil fuels, and costs saved from the transportation of fuels (uranium generates way more energy than an equal amount of oil or coal) will be more beneficial than using fossil fuels.
106996
Currently we are using nuclear FISSION (splitting) in all nuclear reactors of the world. The only problem is all the waste fission produces (radioactive waste whose half-life is one-million years!). Because FUSION (fusing) involves combining, it produces no waste whatsoever. The only problem is that fusion requires MASS amounts of energy (via heat), so in the end, more energy is used than is created. Because it is almost impossible to receive benefit from heat fusion, scientists are currently working on COLD FUSION (requires little energy), but nothing of significance has developed yet. \n\nSo all in all the cost of nuclear fusion is that it requires too much and provides too little.
589939
On whether a country should have more nuclear power stations, or at least that is what the debate in UK is.\n\nFor:\n- Using nuclear reactor to generate electricity does not produce carbon dioxide like other methods.\n\n- Is extrememly efficient as it uses a very small amount of natural resources (uranium) and quite cheap in the long run.\n\nAgainst:\n- Where to put the waste?  At the moment no solution has been found.\n\n- There is the fear of meltdown and disaster, and as such few people want to live near a nuclear power plant.
411815
No.If there was we would use nuclear energy.It is not and never was a workable energy source because of the hazards and waste.
877117
That's depending on the domains you want to use that electricity, because there are a lot of ways to produce electricity as to consume it. In fact it is (and should be) very simple to produce electricity, as the way it is valued and used. \nThe only thing which separates the methods is  the QUANTITY of electric energy.\nIt's not the same thing to light up a flashlight bulb or LED,or to power a industrial electric engine (motor) for mechanical work. \nThe basic and most quantitative method is to use a generator (which , yes implies FERROUS ALLOYS) which have a magnetic core carbon-iron based, used as magnetic circuit (they conduct very well the magnetic field, but they are specially made to isolate the convective currents.\nThe idea is simple to use in various ways, thing is to pass one (electro)magnet in front of a coil with (without) ferrous core. You can imagine from here a lots of ways to put it or to make it work with something.\nFor instance instead of using common generator(alternators) you can take one coil and insert in side of the spirals a bar of permanent magnet and with alternative movements of back and forth you can get  electricity. The strongest the magnet, the strongest the electricity will be.\nFor easy lab electricity you can take some jucy fruits(apples,oranges, pineapples, etc) and insert in them two electrods with some distance with respect to each other, one made from zinc and other from copper. Colect the energy gathered by the potential differential, and voila:). \n\nFerroalloys generaly are giving A.C current, meaning thet's alternative and is not good for aparatus wich use Direct Current. But with this method you can get a direct current fairy easly. \nGood luck:)
972561
Nations such as France and Japan use nuclear power to generate massive amounts of electricity.  That means they're using less oil, coal and natural gas.
152530
NUCLEAR POWER\nIn the mid-1950s, nuclear physicists confidently predicted that nuclear energy would usher in a golden age for humanity: the cost of energy would be so low it would be "too cheap to meter." They predicted that, by the year 2000, there would be one thousand commercial reactors and one thousand "breeder" reactors producing unlimited amounts of power. Like the horse and buggy, oil and coal would become little more than historical curiosities.\n\nNuclear power has exceeded some of these early predictions. Its safety record, when compared, say, to the airline industry, is vastly superior. Compared to the air pollution and acid rain caused by the coal industry, its environmental record is admirable. It currently generates over 15 percent of the nation's electricity and has thus reduced the dependence on scarce fossil fuels. Some claim it may also reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect.\n\nIronically, however, this same industry is also teetering on the verge of collapse. Contrary to previous expectations, the United States now has over one hundred commercial reactors, the breeder reactor program is defunct, and there has not been a single reactor order since 1978, one year before an accident at Three Mile Island. Over one hundred reactor orders have been canceled, and costs have escalated so that the Nine Mile Point reactor in upstate New York will soar beyond $6 billion, or about six times the cost of a coal plant of similar power.\n\nNever in modern history has a major technology, with the full backing of industry and the government, come to such an abrupt halt. Well over $100 billion has been invested in nuclear energy, yet the people of California voted to close down an operating reactor, and the people of Long Island, New York, are closing down the fully completed $5 billion Shoreham reactor before it opens.\n\nUtilities that invested heavily in nuclear power have been driven to the wall by its mounting costs; the Washington Public Power Supply System went bankrupt, and the Long Island Lighting Co. incurred billions in losses. What went wrong? \n\nAlthough the reasons for this unprecedented collapse are complex, many of the problems can be traced to unwise decisions made in the 1950s. Specifically, when the Nautilus nuclear submarine sailed effortlessly beneath the North Pole, it touched off a stampede among corporations interested in the commercial development of nuclear energy. The 1960s marked the "gold rush" in reactors, when General Electric, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, and Babcock-Wilcox scrambled to bring this technology to the marketplace. In fact, Con Edison even applied for a license to build its Ravenswood reactor in the heart of New York City opposite the United Nations.\n\nBecause large plants are more economical than small ones, designers started with the small (40-megawatt) Nautilus reactor and essentially scaled it up many times to the current 1,000-megawatt design, without clearly thinking through the consequences. Decades later, this would lead to three serious problems. First, in retrospect, scaling up the Nautilus design was a poor choice to begin with because the light-water Nautilus reactor is highly susceptible to a rapid melting of the uranium core. Alternate designs (e.g., gas-cooled high-temperature gas reactors) were much more stable against a meltdown but were ignored. Second, this meant that elaborate and expensive emergency core cooling systems had to be installed, which would later add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the reactor and delay construction for several years. Third, no attention was paid to how reactors would be decommissioned after thirty to forty years of use or where the radioactive nuclear waste would be disposed of.\n\nIn 1957, a prophetic, but secret, report was issued by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, called wash—740. It estimated that a meltdown, a Class 9 accident, could cause $7 billion in pro
348093
Electricity may be generated directly from solar panels (using the photo-electric effect) or from providing rotational force to an electric generator (just  wires moving across a magnetic field). \n\nAny form of energy that creates movement can be used for the generator -\n1. Apply heat to water to make steam to turn a turbine to turn a generator). The heat could be provided by fossil fuels, nuclear power, geothermal sources (eg hot springs), solar radiation.\n2. Use wind or water power to turn the generator (windmills & hydroelectric dams) \n3. Tidal power again to rotate a generator.\n\nAll these forms of electrcity generation require major capital expenditure that perhaps would be difficult for Ghana to afford. However, the windmills & solar panels are probably the easiest to implement since they could be implemented by an incremental approach. The disadvantage is the inability to match supply to demand.
44111
Ok well the current JET (Joint European Torus) in Culham, Oxfordshire, UK is the biggest experimental fusion reactor in the world. Although the ITER is set to overtake it in France. There are many different fusion reactions that we can use, although the most preferable one is Deuterium-Tritium because it is one of the easist to kick-start. The big advantage with fusion is its (relative) safety and phenomenal power output. The amount of useful energy which we can obtain from nuclear fusion is staggering. It does not release pollutants into the atmosphere and although there is a radioactive by-product, this is not a problem since it is easy to deal with (unlike radioactive uranium and plutonium). The major disadvantage is the cost. The current fusion project in France almost didn't happen. Both Europe and Japan wanted it on their territory, but couldn't come to a compromise. In the end Europe insisted that they take the project alone and Japan can join in if they wish! The new reactor is in the stages of being built now but it will be some time before it is operational. And in its current state it is only in an experimental stage; it is not yet in a commercial stage, and won't be for many decades. However it is the perfect solution for producing electrical energy, with huge benefits (apart from the intial cost). See weblink for more detailed information.
988898
PV tech is expensive and only works when the sun is shining. Not the best solution when we have a delivery infrastructure for bulk power. Don't forget about all the batteries a solar set-up needs. Where do they go when they no longer hold a charge?\n\nNuclear is the best solution.
1071855
The previous posted is confused.\n\n"Solar power is still the best alternative energy source, and it is because of that that it's still decades away from being fully researched and employed in our everyday lives"\n  --Solar energy is used with great success in the western US were large areas of land are available to be used for solar projects. \n\n"why,..because the Big oil barrons would be out of a job,...plain and simple"\n   --It is inefficient use as a large power source.  An overcast day can hinder generation from the sites, plus the large amount of area required focusing enough light to heat water cells or even PV cells.  Let's not count out nighttime.  \n\n"It's now 2006,.. Over 30 years since the oil and gas embargo of the 70's and we still have not learned our lessions, Oil company's and big business have effectively lobbied our lawmakers into doing nothing and here we are,.. now paying $ 3.00 and more . per gallon, $ 70.00 a barrel for oil, ask your parents about the gas embargo of the 70's,...then ask them why nothng has changed"\n   --Then why are cars getting more and more fuel efficient??  I'm all for driving big block Chevy's, but they seemed to have been taken off the market until most recently.  Why is that??  If the rate of inflation was applied to the cost of gasoline since 1970, the current price per gallon would be well over $5.00.  Oil has been somewhat stable up until the mid to late 1990's.\n\nOh, and don't forget to subtract the taxes your lawmakers have placed on each gallon of gas since 1970.
174097
That's a good one to bet on for an increasing job market in the future as energy costs continue to rise due to world demand from China and other developing countries. Of course there's nuclear medicine also, but my interest is in the nuclear electric power generating industry (fission). Longer term, scientists are working on the development of nuclear fusion which is the same process that our sun uses.
75
California electricity is generated by several sources, including hydroelectric, wind, geothermal and nuclear (in addition to the more traditional natural gas).  The question is why these other sources aren't used more, and the answer is that historically, they've either been more expensive or have environmental risks of their own (esp. for nuclear).  As petroleum and natural gas sources start to get used up, and world demand for energy increases, the cost of electricity from natural gas will go up and the other sources will become more cost effective and more prevalent.\nIncidentally, solar power is another source used in California, but it's provided by individuals, not power companies.  If your house has solar power and you have the right equipment, you can sell your surplus electricity to the power company and your electric meter will literally run backward.
815781
Good question.\n\nThere seem to be many other sources of energy but they seem to be expensive to obtain or to require large amounts of land to be dedicated to crop growth or for collectors.  This is in itself a type of inefficiency. \n\nIn the long term prices may come down but energy such as crop based gasoline alternatives don't seem to me like they would cut it with a growing demand for gas their will be a growing demand for the amount of land that must be dedicated to its production. not to mention the population is growing and its not going to stop.\n\nIf we move toward becoming almost entirely dependent upon alternative energy we must move towards harnessing different kinds of power and not just search for one solution.\n\nA lot of money would be lost from a lot of big companies.\n\nFor instance there is a windmill type device you can purchase for your home needs right now for around $10,000 it is highly efficient\nand supposedly super quiet.  It is said to be able to generate between 30% to all of a homes energy needs depending on where you live. If too much energy is generated the excess may be sold back to the electrical company.  \n\nIf you could purchase three of these at the hefty price of $30,000 you could theoretically not ever have to pay a power bill again in some places or pay almost no bill at all. The electrical companies services could be utilized as a form of backup power.  \n\nIf everyone had these wind collectors this would certainly shrink the electrical power industry.\n\nThere is no information available to me about how much it can cost to repair these items or how well they can withstand the event of a hurricane or tornado. \n\nBut I dont think think alternative energy is a pipe dream it is just something that is going to take a large investment to start up and develop towards higher levels of performance and efficiency. \n\nThe engineering of rugged devices will have to play a large role and does currently, however, a lot of trial and error needs to occur to see what works where and why and what got destroyed by random acts of god and the forces of nature and how that can be prevented.\n\nShould things begin to look rather good for alternative energy... and it seems things look better day by day... energy companies would have to begin facing downsizing and new business models and perhaps invest themselves into the production of alternative energy or alternative energy generating devices for sale to the public.  Either way at some point they wont be the economic giants they have been to this point and thats probably gonna keep them from helping.\n\nAlternative energy will only be a pipe dream if people are afraid to nurture it and harness the energies available. This is something that is and will be heavily influenced by politics.\n\nOn another note, I think that nuclear power seems to be an "easy way out" but I don't believe that it is a good or secure solution.  There have been so many nuclear mishaps you dont hear about and so much waste that you cant prevent or do anything about. Aside from alternative energy being developed for fear of a lack of oil I also thought a large part of it was moving towards a cleaner earth. Moving towards nuclear power and nuclear waste is dangerous for everyone.  Radiation does not simply go away it is corruption of matter and it is "contagious".  Sure we could maybe launch it off into space, but should something go wrong on the way out of here we would face yet another type of radiological disaster.
1078609
Hi, Kenny. You are asking for a lot of information. I have written a book, on the history of nuclear science and will link you to it to read online. This space here is awfully limited.\n\nThe short answer is that nuclear science allows us to generate electrical power out in space even when we are far away from stars like the sun. \n\nThere are two ways we do that:\n\n1. Nuclear reactors - just like the atomic power plants on earth, reactors depend upon the splitting of uranium or plutonium atoms to generate heat and then the heat is used to boil a liquid and turn a turbine. The turbine moves a coil of wire through a magnetic field and gives you electricity.\n\n2. Thermopyles - plutonium due to its alpha radioactive decay gets pretty hot naturally. If you put two dissimilar wires wrapped around each other in a heat source and then the other end of the wires in somewhere cold (like out in space), electrons will flow through them. This is called a thermocouple. If you put lots of those together, you have what is called a thermopyle. This kind of technology is pretty flawless and is used even for things like heart pacemakers.
484249
With ground based solar:\nPositives:\nOnce you build the panels the power is free\nLittle environmental impact\nAppeases the luddites\nNegatives:\nDownright expensive\nToo unreliable to be a major player in a power grid\nDoesn't work at night\nReduced power when skies aren't clear\nReduced power in winter and at high latitudes\n\nNow putting the solar power plant in space and beaming the power down to earth is another matter.\nPositives:\nVery clean, possibly cleaner than doing it on the ground (trade off is between making the semiconductors on Earth and dumping the waste from that or launching rockets)\nPotentially very cheap if space resources are used\nActually has a possibility of competing with fossil fuels and nuclear power for dominant power supplier\nNegatives:\nNot yet deployed so we only know of it in theory and limited tests of the microwave power transmission\nEvery year at the equinoxes there is a IIRC 74 minute blackout (not as bad as a 12 hour one though and that's only on two days)\nLuddites will probably oppose it despite the microwave beam being perfectly safe
387321
We = U.S.?  Yes, "we" should.  The electricity demand is going to rise significantly over the next several decades - we could build hundred of cola/gas fired plants, removing it from car/truck consumption and from plastics and other industries feedstock OR a couple of baseload nuclear plants.  The new ones are passively safe and generate no greenhouse gases, or other toxic emissions unlike fossil fuel plants that create tons (including releasing radioactivity).  There is the spent fuel issue - however, if the US could get the geologic repository licensed and operating, or recycle the spent fuel, we'd be a lot better off.  Here's an informed site with benefits: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=106