What are the pros and cons of nuclear energy? Pros and cons of nuclear power plants
The use of nuclear energy in the modern world is so important that if we woke up tomorrow and the energy of a nuclear reaction disappeared, the world as we know it would probably cease to exist. Peace is the basis of industrial production and life in such countries as France and Japan, Germany and Great Britain, the USA and Russia. And if the last two countries are still able to replace nuclear energy sources with thermal stations, then for France or Japan this is simply impossible.
The use of nuclear energy creates many problems. Basically, all these problems are related to the fact that using the binding energy of the atomic nucleus (which we call nuclear energy) for one's own benefit, a person receives significant evil in the form of highly radioactive waste that cannot simply be thrown away. Waste from nuclear energy sources needs to be processed, transported, buried, and stored for a long time in safe conditions.
Pros and cons, benefits and harms from the use of nuclear energy
Consider the pros and cons of the use of atomic-nuclear energy, their benefits, harm and significance in the life of Mankind. It is obvious that only industrialized countries need nuclear energy today. That is, peaceful nuclear energy finds its main application mainly at such facilities as factories, processing plants, etc. It is energy-intensive industries that are remote from sources of cheap electricity (like hydroelectric power plants) that use nuclear power plants to ensure and develop their internal processes.
Agrarian regions and cities do not really need nuclear energy. It is quite possible to replace it with thermal and other stations. It turns out that the mastery, acquisition, development, production and use of nuclear energy is for the most part aimed at satisfying our needs for industrial products. Let's see what kind of industries these are: the automotive industry, military industries, metallurgy, the chemical industry, the oil and gas complex, etc.
Does a modern person want to drive a new car? Want to dress in trendy synthetics, eat synthetics, and pack everything in synthetics? Want bright products in different shapes and sizes? Wants all new phones, TVs, computers? Do you want to buy a lot, often change equipment around you? Want to eat tasty chemical food from colored packs? Do you want to live in peace? Do you want to hear sweet speeches from the TV screen? Do you want to have a lot of tanks, as well as missiles and cruisers, as well as shells and cannons?
And he gets it all. It does not matter that in the end the discrepancy between word and deed leads to war. It does not matter that energy is also needed for its disposal. So far, the person is calm. He eats, drinks, goes to work, sells and buys.
And all this requires energy. And this requires a lot of oil, gas, metal, etc. And all these industrial processes require atomic energy. Therefore, no matter what anyone says, until the first industrial thermonuclear fusion reactor is put into series, nuclear energy will only develop.
In the advantages of nuclear energy, we can safely write down everything that we are used to. On the downside, the sad prospect of imminent death in the collapse of resource depletion, nuclear waste problems, population growth and degradation of arable land. In other words, nuclear energy allowed man to begin to master nature even more strongly, forcing it beyond measure so much that in several decades he overcame the threshold for the reproduction of basic resources, starting between 2000 and 2010 the process of consumption collapse. This process objectively no longer depends on the person.
Everyone will have to eat less, live less and enjoy the natural environment less. Here lies another plus or minus of atomic energy, which lies in the fact that countries that have mastered the atom will be able to more effectively redistribute the depleted resources of those who have not mastered the atom. Moreover, only the development of the thermonuclear fusion program will allow mankind to simply survive. Now let's explain on the fingers what kind of "beast" it is - atomic (nuclear) energy and what it is eaten with.
Mass, matter and atomic (nuclear) energy
One often hears the statement that “mass and energy are the same”, or such judgments that the expression E = mc2 explains the explosion of an atomic (nuclear) bomb. Now that you have a first understanding of nuclear energy and its applications, it would be truly unwise to confuse you with statements such as "mass equals energy." In any case, this way of interpreting the great discovery is not the best. Apparently, this is just the wit of the young reformists, the "Galileans of the new time." In fact, the prediction of the theory, which has been verified by many experiments, says only that energy has mass.
Now we will explain the modern point of view and give a short overview of the history of its development.
When the energy of any material body increases, its mass increases, and we attribute this additional mass to the increase in energy. For example, when radiation is absorbed, the absorber becomes hotter and its mass increases. However, the increase is so small that it remains outside the measurement accuracy in conventional experiments. On the contrary, if a substance emits radiation, then it loses a drop of its mass, which is carried away by radiation. A broader question arises: is not the entire mass of matter conditioned by energy, i.e., is there not an enormous store of energy contained in all matter? Many years ago, radioactive transformations answered this positively. When a radioactive atom decays, a huge amount of energy is released (mostly in the form of kinetic energy), and a small part of the mass of the atom disappears. The measurements are clear about this. Thus, energy carries away mass with it, thereby reducing the mass of matter.
Consequently, part of the mass of matter is interchangeable with the mass of radiation, kinetic energy, etc. That is why we say: "energy and matter are partially capable of mutual transformations." Moreover, we can now create particles of matter that have mass and are able to completely transform into radiation, which also has mass. The energy of this radiation can go into other forms, transferring its mass to them. Conversely, radiation can be converted into particles of matter. So instead of "energy has mass" we can say "particles of matter and radiation are interconvertible, and therefore capable of mutual transformations with other forms of energy." This is the creation and destruction of matter. Such destructive events cannot occur in the realm of ordinary physics, chemistry, and technology, but must be sought either in the microscopic but active processes studied by nuclear physics, or in the high-temperature furnace of atomic bombs, in the sun and stars. However, it would be unreasonable to say that "energy is mass". We say: "energy, like matter, has mass."
Mass of ordinary matter
We say that the mass of ordinary matter contains a huge amount of internal energy equal to the product of the mass and (the speed of light)2. But this energy is contained in the mass and cannot be released without the disappearance of at least part of it. How did such an amazing idea come about and why was it not discovered earlier? It was proposed earlier - experiment and theory in different forms - but until the twentieth century, the change in energy was not observed, because in ordinary experiments it corresponds to an incredibly small change in mass. However, now we are sure that a flying bullet, due to its kinetic energy, has an additional mass. Even at 5,000 m/sec, a bullet that weighed exactly 1g at rest would have a total mass of 1.00000000001g. White-hot platinum weighing 1kg would add 0.000000000004kg in total, and practically no weighing would be able to register these changes. Only when huge amounts of energy are released from the atomic nucleus, or when atomic "projectiles" are accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light, does a mass of energy become noticeable.
On the other hand, even a barely perceptible difference in mass marks the possibility of releasing a huge amount of energy. Thus, hydrogen and helium atoms have relative masses of 1.008 and 4.004. If four hydrogen nuclei could combine into one helium nucleus, then the mass of 4.032 would change to 4.004. The difference is small, only 0.028, or 0.7%. But it would mean a gigantic release of energy (mainly in the form of radiation). 4.032 kg of hydrogen would give 0.028 kg of radiation, which would have an energy of about 600000000000 Cal.
Compare this to the 140,000 cal released when the same amount of hydrogen is combined with oxygen in a chemical explosion.
Ordinary kinetic energy makes a significant contribution to the mass of very fast protons produced by cyclotrons, and this creates difficulties when working with such machines.
Why do we still believe that E=mc2
Now we perceive this as a direct consequence of the theory of relativity, but the first suspicions arose already towards the end of the 19th century, in connection with the properties of radiation. Then it seemed likely that radiation had mass. And since the radiation carries, as on wings, at a speed of energy, more precisely, it is energy itself, then an example of a mass belonging to something “immaterial” has appeared. The experimental laws of electromagnetism predicted that electromagnetic waves must have "mass". But before the creation of the theory of relativity, only unbridled fantasy could extend the ratio m=E/c2 to other forms of energy.
All kinds of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, infrared, visible and ultraviolet light, etc.) have some common features: they all propagate through empty space at the same speed, and they all carry energy and momentum. We imagine light and other radiation in the form of waves propagating at a high but definite speed c=3*108 m/sec. When light strikes an absorbing surface, heat is generated, indicating that the light flux carries energy. This energy must propagate along with the flow at the same speed of light. In fact, the speed of light is measured exactly in this way: by the time of flight of a large distance by a portion of light energy.
When light strikes the surface of some metals, it knocks out electrons, which fly out just as if they were hit by a compact ball. , apparently, is distributed in concentrated portions, which we call "quanta". This is the quantum nature of the radiation, despite the fact that these portions, apparently, are created by waves. Each portion of light with the same wavelength has the same energy, a certain "quantum" of energy. Such portions rush at the speed of light (in fact, they are light), transferring energy and momentum (momentum). All this makes it possible to attribute a certain mass to the radiation - a certain mass is attributed to each portion.
When light is reflected from a mirror, no heat is released, because the reflected beam carries away all the energy, but a pressure acts on the mirror, similar to the pressure of elastic balls or molecules. If, instead of a mirror, the light hits a black absorbing surface, the pressure becomes half as much. This indicates that the beam carries the momentum rotated by the mirror. Therefore, light behaves as if it had mass. But is there any other way to know that something has mass? Does mass exist in its own right, such as length, green, or water? Or is it an artificial concept defined by behaviors like Modesty? Mass, in fact, is known to us in three manifestations:
- A. A vague statement that characterizes the amount of "substance" (Mass from this point of view is inherent in substance - an entity that we can see, touch, push).
- B. Certain statements linking it to other physical quantities.
- B. Mass is conserved.
It remains to define mass in terms of momentum and energy. Then any moving thing with momentum and energy must have "mass". Its mass should be (momentum)/(velocity).
Theory of relativity
The desire to link together a series of experimental paradoxes concerning absolute space and time gave rise to the theory of relativity. The two kinds of experiments with light gave conflicting results, and experiments with electricity further exacerbated this conflict. Then Einstein proposed to change the simple geometric rules of vector addition. This change is the essence of his "special theory of relativity".
For low speeds (from the slowest snail to the fastest of rockets), the new theory is consistent with the old one.
At high speeds, comparable to the speed of light, our measurement of lengths or time is modified by the motion of the body relative to the observer, in particular, the mass of the body becomes greater the faster it moves.
Then the theory of relativity proclaimed that this increase in mass was of a completely general nature. At normal speeds, there are no changes, and only at a speed of 100,000,000 km / h does the mass increase by 1%. However, for electrons and protons emitted from radioactive atoms or modern accelerators, it reaches 10, 100, 1000%…. Experiments with such high-energy particles provide excellent evidence for the relationship between mass and velocity.
At the other end is radiation that has no rest mass. It is not a substance and cannot be kept still; it just has mass, and it's moving at speed c, so its energy is mc2. We speak of quanta as photons when we want to note the behavior of light as a stream of particles. Each photon has a certain mass m, a certain energy E=mс2 and a certain amount of motion (momentum).
Nuclear transformations
In some experiments with nuclei, the masses of atoms after violent explosions do not add up to give the same total mass. The liberated energy takes away with it some part of the mass; the missing piece of atomic material seems to have disappeared. However, if we assign a mass E/c2 to the measured energy, we find that the mass is conserved.
Matter annihilation
We are accustomed to think of mass as an inevitable property of matter, so the transition of mass from matter to radiation - from a lamp to a flying beam of light looks almost like the destruction of matter. One more step - and we will be surprised to find out what is actually happening: positive and negative electrons, particles of matter, when combined together, completely turn into radiation. The mass of their matter turns into an equal mass of radiation. This is a case of the disappearance of matter in the most literal sense. As if in focus, in a flash of light.
Measurements show that (energy, radiation during annihilation) / c2 is equal to the total mass of both electrons - positive and negative. An antiproton, when combined with a proton, annihilates, usually with the release of lighter particles with high kinetic energy.
Creation of substance
Now that we have learned how to manage high-energy radiation (super-short-wave X-rays), we can prepare particles of matter from radiation. If a target is bombarded with such beams, they sometimes produce a pair of particles, for example, positive and negative electrons. And if we again use the formula m=E/c2 for both radiation and kinetic energy, then the mass will be conserved.
Just about the complex - Nuclear (Atomic) energy
- Gallery of images, pictures, photos.
- Nuclear energy, atomic energy - fundamentals, opportunities, prospects, development.
- Interesting facts, useful information.
- Green news - Nuclear energy, the energy of the atom.
- References to materials and sources - Nuclear (Atomic) energy.
The main arguments in favor of the development of nuclear energy are the comparative cheapness of energy and a small amount of waste. In terms of a unit of energy produced, waste from nuclear power plants is thousands of times less than at coal-fired thermal power plants (1 glass of uranium-235 provides as much energy as 10 thousand tons of coal). The advantage of nuclear power plants is the absence of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, which accompanies the production of electricity by burning carbonaceous energy carriers.
Today it is already quite obvious that during the normal operation of nuclear power plants, the environmental risk in obtaining energy is incomparably lower than in the coal industry.
According to approximate calculations, the closure of already existing nuclear power plants would require an additional burning of 630 million tons of coal annually, which would lead to the release of 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide and 4 million tons of toxic and radioactive ash into the atmosphere. Replacing nuclear power plants with thermal power plants would lead to a 50-fold increase in mortality from atmospheric pollution. To extract this additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it would be necessary to plant a forest on an area that is 4-8 times larger than the territory of Germany.
Nuclear energy has serious opponents. L. Brown (Brown, 2001) considers it as uncompetitive. Arguments against the development of nuclear energy are the difficulty of ensuring the complete safety of the nuclear fuel cycle, as well as the risk of accidents at nuclear power plants. The history of the development of nuclear energy is overshadowed by severe accidents that occurred in Kyshtym and Chernobyl. However, the probability of accidents at modern nuclear power plants is extremely low. So, in the UK it is no more than 1:1000000. Japan is building new nuclear power plants (including the world's largest Fukushima) in seismically hazardous areas on the ocean.
Prospects for nuclear energy.
The depletion of carbonaceous energy carriers, the limited possibilities of energy based on renewable energy sources and the growing demand for energy are pushing most countries of the world towards the development of nuclear energy, with the construction of nuclear power plants starting in the developing countries of South America, Asia and Africa. The previously suspended construction of nuclear power plants is being resumed even in the countries affected by the Chernobyl disaster - Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation. The operation of nuclear power plants in Armenia is being resumed.
The technological level of nuclear energy and its environmental safety are being raised. Projects have already been developed for the introduction of new, more economical reactors capable of spending 4-10 times less uranium per unit of electricity than modern ones. The issue of using thorium and plutonium as "fuel" is being discussed. Japanese scientists believe that plutonium can be burned without residue and nuclear power plants on plutonium can be the most environmentally friendly, as they do not produce radioactive waste (RW). For this reason, Japan is actively buying up plutonium released during the dismantling of nuclear warheads. However, the transfer of nuclear power plants to plutonium fuel requires expensive modernization of nuclear reactors.
The nuclear fuel cycle is changing; a set of all operations accompanying the extraction of raw materials for nuclear fuel, its preparation for burning in reactors, the process of obtaining energy and processing, storage and disposal of radioactive waste. In some European countries and in the Russian Federation, a transition to a closed cycle is underway, in which less radioactive waste is generated, since a significant part of them is afterburned after processing. This makes it possible not only to reduce the risk of radioactive contamination of the environment (see 10.4.4), but also to reduce the consumption of uranium by hundreds of times, the resources of which are exhaustible. With an open cycle, radioactive waste is not processed, but disposed of. It is more economical, but not environmentally justified. US nuclear power plants are still operating under this scheme.
In general, the issues of processing and safe disposal of radioactive waste are technically solvable. In recent years, the Club of Rome has also spoken in favor of the development of nuclear energy, whose experts formulated the following position: “Oil is too expensive, coal is too dangerous for nature, the contribution of renewable energy is too insignificant, the only chance is to stick to the nuclear option.”
The advantages of nuclear energy in comparison with other types of energy production are obvious. High power and low total cost of energy opened up great prospects for the development of nuclear energy and the construction of nuclear power plants. In most countries of the world, the advantages of nuclear energy are taken into account even today - more and more power units are being built and contracts are being signed for the construction of nuclear power plants in the future.
One of the main advantages of nuclear energy is its profitability. It consists of many factors, and the most important of them is low dependence on fuel transportation. Let's compare a CHPP with a capacity of 1 million kW and an NPP block of equal power. CHPPs require from 2 to 5 million tons of fuel per year, the cost of its transportation can be up to 50% of the cost of energy received, and about 30 tons of uranium will need to be delivered to nuclear power plants, which will practically not affect the final price of energy.
Also, in the advantages of nuclear energy, one can safely write down the fact that the use of nuclear fuel is not accompanied by a combustion process and the emission of harmful substances and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which means that the construction of expensive facilities to clean up emissions into the atmosphere will not be required. A quarter of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere are accounted for by thermal power plants, which has a very negative impact on the environmental situation of cities located near them, and on the state of the atmosphere in general. Cities located close to nuclear power plants operating in the normal mode fully feel the advantages of nuclear energy and are considered one of the most environmentally friendly in all countries of the world. They constantly monitor the radioactive state of the earth, water and air, as well as analyze the flora and fauna - such constant monitoring allows you to really assess the pros and cons of nuclear energy and its impact on the ecology of the region. It is worth noting that during the observation period in the areas where the nuclear power plant is located, deviations of the radioactive background from the normal have never been recorded, unless it was an emergency.
The advantages of nuclear energy do not end there. In the context of the impending energy shortage and the depletion of carbon fuel reserves, the question naturally arises of fuel reserves for nuclear power plants. The answer to this question is very optimistic: the explored reserves of uranium and other radioactive elements in the earth's crust amount to several million tons, and at the current level of consumption they can be considered practically inexhaustible.
But the advantages of nuclear energy extend not only to nuclear power plants. The energy of the atom is used today for other purposes, in addition to supplying the population and industry with electrical energy. Thus, one cannot overestimate the advantages of nuclear energy for the submarine fleet and nuclear icebreakers. The use of nuclear engines allows them to exist autonomously for a long time, move over any distance, and submarines can stay under water for months. Today, the world is developing underground and floating nuclear power plants and nuclear engines for spacecraft.
Taking into account the advantages of nuclear energy, we can safely say that in the future mankind will continue to use the possibilities of nuclear energy, which, if handled carefully, pollutes the environment less and practically does not disturb the ecological balance on our planet. But the advantages of nuclear energy faded significantly in the eyes of the world community after two serious accidents: at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 and at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in 2011. The scale of these incidents is such that their consequences can cover almost all the advantages of nuclear energy known to mankind. The tragedy in Japan for a number of countries was the impetus for reworking the energy strategy and shifting the emphasis towards the use of alternative energy sources.
Nuclear power is the only way to meet humanity's growing need for electricity.
No other sources of energy are able to produce enough electricity. Its global consumption increased by 39% from 1990 to 2008 and is increasing every year. Solar energy cannot meet industrial electricity needs. Oil and coal reserves are depleted. In 2016, there were 451 nuclear power units operating in the world. In total, power units generated 10.7% of the world's electricity generation. 20% of all electricity generated in Russia is produced by nuclear power plants.
The energy released during a nuclear reaction far exceeds the amount of heat released during combustion.
1 kg of uranium enriched to 4% releases an amount of energy equivalent to burning 60 tons of oil or 100 tons of coal.
Safe operation of nuclear power plants in comparison with thermal ones.
Since the construction of the first nuclear facilities, about three dozen accidents have occurred, in four cases there has been a release of harmful substances into the atmosphere. The number of incidents associated with the explosion of methane in coal mines is in the tens. Due to outdated equipment, the number of accidents at thermal power plants is increasing every year. The last major accident in Russia occurred in 2016 on Sakhalin. Then 20 thousand Russians were left without electricity. An explosion in 2013 at the Uglegorsk TPP (Donetsk region, Ukraine) provoked a fire that could not be extinguished for 15 hours. A large amount of toxic substances were released into the atmosphere.
Independence from fossil energy sources.
Natural fuel reserves are depleted. The remains of coal and oil are estimated at 0.4 IJ (1 IJ = 10 24 J). Uranium reserves exceed 2.5 IJ. In addition, uranium can be reused. Nuclear fuel is easy to transport, and transportation costs are minimal.
Comparative environmental friendliness of nuclear power plants.
In 2013, global emissions from the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity amounted to 32 gigatonnes. This includes hydrocarbons and aldehydes, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. Nuclear power plants do not consume oxygen, while thermal power plants use oxygen to oxidize fuel and produce hundreds of thousands of tons of ash per year. Emissions from nuclear power plants occur on rare occasions. A side effect of their activities is the emission of radionuclides, which decay within a few hours.
The "greenhouse effect" encourages countries to limit the amount of burning coal and oil. Nuclear power plants in Europe annually reduce CO2 emissions by 700 million tons.
Positive impact on the economy.
The construction of a nuclear power plant creates jobs at the plant and in related industries. The Leningrad NPP, for example, provides local industrial enterprises with heating and hot process water. The station is a source of medical oxygen for medical institutions and liquid nitrogen for enterprises. The hydrotechnical shop supplies drinking water to consumers. The volume of energy production from nuclear power plants is directly related to the growth of the welfare of the region.
A small amount of truly hazardous waste.
Spent nuclear fuel is a source of energy. Radioactive waste makes up 5% of spent fuel. Out of 50 kg of waste, only 2 kg need long-term storage and require serious isolation.
Radioactive substances are mixed with liquid glass and poured into containers with thick alloy steel walls. Iron containers are ready to provide reliable storage of hazardous substances for 200-300 years.
The construction of floating nuclear power plants (FNPP) will provide cheap electricity to hard-to-reach areas, including those in earthquake-prone areas.
Nuclear power plants are vital in remote areas of the Far East and the Far North, but the construction of stationary stations is not economically justified in sparsely populated areas. The way out will be the use of small floating nuclear thermal power plants. The world's first FNPP "Akademik Lomonosov" will be launched in autumn 2019 on the coast of the Chukotka Peninsula in Pevek. The construction of a floating power unit (FPU) is being carried out at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg. In total, it is planned to put into operation 7 FNPPs by 2020. Among the advantages of using floating nuclear power plants:
- providing cheap electricity and heat;
- obtaining 40-240 thousand cubic meters of fresh water per day;
- no need for urgent evacuation of the population in case of accidents at the FPU;
- increased impact resistance of power units;
- a potential leap in the development of the economy of the regions with FNPP.
Submit your fact
Cons of nuclear energy
High costs for the construction of nuclear power plants.
The construction of a modern nuclear power plant is estimated at $9 billion. According to some experts, the costs could reach 20-25 billion euros. The cost of one reactor, depending on its capacity and supplier, ranges from 2-5 billion dollars. This is 4.4 times higher than the cost of wind energy and 5 times more expensive than solar. The payback period of the station is quite large.
Uranium-235 reserves, which are used by almost all nuclear power plants, are limited.
Reserves of uranium-235 will last for 50 years. Switching to the use of a combination of uranium-238 and thorium will allow us to generate energy for humanity for another thousand years. The problem is that uranium-235 is needed to switch to uranium-238 and thorium. Using all the uranium-235 stocks would make the transition impossible.
The costs of generating nuclear energy exceed the operating costs of wind farms.
Energy Fair researchers have presented a report that demonstrates the economic inexpediency of using nuclear energy. 1 MWh produced by a nuclear power plant costs £60 ($96) more than a similar amount of energy produced by windmills. The operation of stations for the splitting of the atom costs 202 pounds ($323) per 1 MW / hour, the wind power facility - 140 pounds ($224).
Severe consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants.
The risk of accidents at facilities exists throughout the lifetime of nuclear reactors. A vivid example is the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, for the elimination of which 600 thousand people were sent. Within 20 years after the accident, 5,000 liquidators died. Rivers, lakes, forest lands, small and large settlements (5 million hectares of land) have become uninhabitable. 200 thousand km2 were contaminated. The accident caused thousands of deaths, an increase in the number of patients with thyroid cancer. In Europe, 10 thousand cases of the birth of children with deformities were subsequently recorded.
The need for disposal of radioactive waste.
Each stage of the splitting of the atom is associated with the formation of hazardous waste. Repositories are being built to isolate radioactive substances until they completely decay, occupying large areas on the Earth's surface, located in remote places of the world's oceans. The 55 million tons of radioactive waste buried in an area of 180 hectares in Tajikistan are at risk of escaping into the environment. As of 2009, only 47% of radioactive waste from Russian enterprises is in a safe state.
What are the advantages of nuclear power plants over other types of energy generation
Main advantage- practical independence from fuel sources due to the small amount of fuel used, for example, 54 fuel assemblies with a total weight of 41 tons per power unit with a VVER-1000 reactor in 1-1.5 years (for comparison, Troitskaya GRES alone with a capacity of 2000 MW burns for day two railway trains of coal). The cost of transporting nuclear fuel, unlike the traditional one, is negligible. In Russia, this is especially important in the European part, since the delivery of coal from Siberia is too expensive.
A huge advantage of a nuclear power plant is its relative environmental cleanliness. At TPPs, the total annual emissions of harmful substances, which include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, hydrocarbons, aldehydes and fly ash, per 1000 MW of installed capacity range from about 13,000 tons per year for gas to 165,000 for pulverized coal TPPs. There are no such emissions at nuclear power plants. A thermal power plant with a capacity of 1000 MW consumes 8 million tons of oxygen per year for fuel oxidation, while nuclear power plants do not consume oxygen at all. In addition, a larger specific (per unit of electricity produced) release of radioactive substances is produced by a coal-fired power plant. Coal always contains natural radioactive substances; when coal is burned, they almost completely enter the external environment. At the same time, the specific activity of emissions from thermal power plants is several times higher than for nuclear power plants. Also, some nuclear power plants remove part of the heat for the needs of heating and hot water supply of cities, which reduces unproductive heat losses, there are existing and promising projects for the use of "excess" heat in energy-biological complexes (fish farming, growing oysters, heating greenhouses, etc.). In addition, in the future, it is possible to implement projects for combining nuclear power plants with gas turbines, including as "superstructures" at existing nuclear power plants, which can make it possible to achieve an efficiency similar to that of thermal power plants.
For most countries, including Russia, the production of electricity at nuclear power plants is no more expensive than at pulverized-coal and, even more so, gas-oil thermal power plants. The advantage of nuclear power plants in the cost of electricity produced is especially noticeable during the so-called energy crises that began in the early 1970s. Falling oil prices automatically reduce the competitiveness of nuclear power plants.
The cost of building a nuclear power plant is about the same as that of a thermal power plant, or slightly higher.
Falling oil prices automatically reduce the competitiveness of nuclear power plants.
The main disadvantage of nuclear power plants- severe consequences of accidents, to avoid which NPPs are equipped with the most complex safety systems with multiple reserves and redundancy, ensuring the exclusion of core meltdown even in the event of a maximum design basis accident (local complete transverse rupture of the reactor circulation circuit pipeline).
A serious problem for nuclear power plants is their liquidation after the resource is exhausted; according to estimates, it can be up to 20% of the cost of their construction.
For a number of technical reasons, it is extremely undesirable for NPPs to operate in maneuvering modes, that is, covering the variable part of the electrical load schedule.