A nuclear power station does not use coal to generate the heat to generate electric power. That nuclear power station uses a nuclear fission reactor as the heat source, and it will use no coal at all.
There is an indirect use of coal by nuclear power plants. For example, in the United States, nearly all of the fuel for nuclear plants is enriched using power from a dedicated coal burning power plant. That plant, interestingly, is rated as having the highest level of pollutants of any coal plant in the country. Nevertheless, the amount of coal used is very, very small, when considered in terms of its amount per power consumed.
Nuclear power plants also consume fossil fuels in many other ways during their lifetimes. These include construction, mining, refinement, enrichment (as mentioned above), decommissioning, transportation and operations, decommissioning, and waste disposal. Any of these could consume some amount of coal. Current estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power plants seem to average about a quarter the amount produced by combined cycle natural gas plants with cogeneration, or about a tenth of that of coal plants.
Yes, nuclear power is far safer than coal.Nuclear power plants do not pollute the environment because of strict regulations governing their waste. The only danger from nuclear power plants are due to accidents like meltdowns or explosions. There have been a number of nuclear power plant incidents, but altogether, not including Chernobyl, these have only killed around 13 people. Only the Chernobyl incident resulted in widespread loss of life, estimated at around 6,000 people.For comparison, coal power plant pollution kills as many people as Chernobyl every few weeks.The amount of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is about 3 metric tons per terawatt-hour, while the amount of radioactive waste produced by burning coal is about 2 metric tons per terawatt-hour. However, the nuclear waste is contained and tightly regulated. The coal radioactive waste is dumped into the atmosphere as ash or stored in ponds with much less regulation.Because the coal power plant radioactive waste is dumped into the environment, and the nuclear power plant waste is stored safely, coal power plants actually irradiate you 100 times as much as nuclear power plants:You are exposed to 5 person-rem/year of radiation from nuclear power plants.You are exposed to 500 person-rem/year of radiation from coal power plants.Every 2 days, coal power plants in the US release as much radioactive pollution as the Three Mile Island disaster.
In terms of the environment, nuclear power is much better. Fission plants emit no greenhouse gasses or carbon, and -all- of the waste can be completely contained onsite. Living next to a coal plant would actually expose you to much much more radiation than living next to a nuclear plant, because the airborne effluents produced by burning coal is highly radioactive. It's one of those things people need to get educated about. The coal industry spends millions to spook everyone about fission, and it makes me cringe to see highly advanced fission systems like in Germany and Japan be swept away by fear and the extraction industry propaganda.
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in South Africa has a capacity of around 1,860 megawatts, which can provide electricity to approximately two million households. It generates a significant portion of South Africa's electricity supply.
The amount of CO2 produced by a 10 Megawatt power station would depend on the type of fuel it uses. For example, a coal-fired power station would produce around 25,000 tons of CO2 per year, while a natural gas power station would produce around 15,000 tons of CO2 per year.
There are no nuclear power plants in that province
yes a coal is nature nuclear uses lots of power Process for production of power from coal is very inefficient , More over it produces lot of carbon dioxide in to atmosphere (harmful green house gas). While Process for production of power from Nuclear plant is very good when compared with coal power. But initial and maintenance cost is very high. Unit cost for coal power is more economical than nuclear power. So economically coal power station is better. But on the basis of efficiency Nuclear power stations are good. When the deaths caused by the two types of mining are considered, coal fired systems have a much higher overall death rate. But the coal mining industry is improving this.
it depends on how big the power station is
No. Much of their power comes from coal.
The average efficiency of a nuclear power station is about 33%, measured as the ratio of power electric over power thermal.
The energy in one thimble sized uranium fuel pellet is about the same as in the coal in a 100 mile long coal train.... if that gives any idea.
To produce the same amount of energy as one kilogram of uranium fuel pellets in a nuclear power station, approximately 3,500 kilograms of coal must be burnt. This is due to the higher energy density of uranium compared to coal.
Yes,once its used as much oil and coal power station
Not really. You receive 100 times as much radiation from coal power plant pollution than you do from nuclear power plant leaks.
Nuclear generating stations are generally more efficient than coal/oil burning stations in terms of energy production per unit of fuel consumed. This is because nuclear reactions are much more energy-dense and produce more power with less fuel. Additionally, nuclear plants have lower operating costs and emit less greenhouse gases compared to coal/oil plants.
s the question
billions of dollars
See the link below for a review of the situation