comments

NPP construction is expensive but cheap exploitation

producing 1000 MW thermal energy in power-station requires 2 billion cubic meters of gas or 1,7 million tones of oil or 2,7 million tones of carbon, while NPP produces the same amount of thermal energy using only 33-39 tones of enriched uranium oxide €LT

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Climate change and EU
⌃
Energy discussions and policies
⌃
Aggregated Energy Debate
⌃
Renewable forms of energy. Which is more convenient?
⌃
Conventional forms of energy
⌃
Nuclear energy
⌃
Nuclear plant in Lithuania
⌃
Lithuania needs a nuclear factory
■
NPP construction is expensive but cheap exploitation
□
Safety issues
□
Country prosperity is impossible without energy ingrastructure
□
Dependence on energy from foreign countries will be reduced
□
It is a long term investment
□
It will be useful for the expansion of electric cars
□
it will ensure energy stability
□
Necessary, as Baltic countries will face power shortages
□
Will enable the country to sell energy
□
will guarantee cheap energy and fair electricity prices
□
Will result to relatively little waste
□
yes, but only as a national object
□
Country prosperity is impossible without energy infrastructure
□
Expensive constuction and time-consuming
□
NPP is not worth the huge investment
□
Nuclear fuel could be purchased from the stable countries
□
Other, safer alternative energy sources exist
□
Specialists are needed for constuction and more taxes
□
There are ready investments for nuclear energy
□
Will further pollute the environment
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip