HOW A NUCLEAR POWER
In nuclear energy is extracted through so-called fission, splitting thus nuclei of the radioactive metal uranium.
The cores were split and provide thermal energy used to heat the water evaporated.
The steam in turn drives a turbine that generates electricity.
Uranium is as I said very radioactive, which is not exactly environmentally friendly. Therefore, one must somehow dispose of uranium when it is ready to use. It does so by first year keep it isolated in a cooling water pool, and then between the store for 40 years in other basins. After that you have to dispose of it deep in the bedrock. Right now looking Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) for a suitable place for storage, where residents are prepared to accept the waste.
The Swedish parliament has decided that no new nuclear power plants will be built, and those that are to be phased out, but not until we have reduced our energy consumption or find a way to replace a sufficient amount of electricity from renewable sources.
PROS AND CONS OF NUCLEAR
I think the decision of Parliament is very good considering all the risks nuclear power brings.
The disposal of waste is not exactly 100 percent sure.
In addition, much of that nuclear power should be safe, and I do not think everything needs to be done for it, is worth the energy extracted.
Also, I think it is irresponsible to just bury the uranium and then hope that it will be down there in the bedrock of some 100 000 years without something unexpected happens. We are not able to manage it well, so we solve the problem temporarily by burying it. Is it really such a safe bet to leave the problems of storage for our future generations?
Uranium is also an element, and can not be renewed. The population of the world increases, and also the need for energy. The uranium will then in due time running out, if we continue to consume the same rate as today, why not wind it all at once then?
But nuclear power does not contribute in any way to a thinned ozone layer or increase the greenhouse effect, like so many other energy sources do. In addition there is a nuclear plant inexpensive to operate, and nuclear power is a very efficient way to extract energy. But you can think about what "cheap" really means in this context. I do not think it is "cheap" then exposing the humanity and environment at serious risk, you can not let money control when it comes to human safety and health. So according to me is more disadvantages than advantages of nuclear power plants.
ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR POWER
I believe in biofuels and bioenergy!
That is, because of burning biofuels, such as wood, bark and pellets.
Because a tree emit as much carbon dioxide as it takes up to grow, then it should be a good way.
It does not get anywhere near the amount of emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which is very positive!
I think that, for example, could grow forests solely for energy. But in the current situation is, however, most bioenergy for heating, but I think it certainly could use bioenergy for electricity!
However, the biofuel is not as effective as the nuclear power which is a problem. I think Sweden needs to change his attitude, and think in more energy-efficient paths for this to be possible. It is all, however, not in a day, it is a prolonged and extensive work for the population to become aware of the problem. For example, the wasted energy in homes, leaving the TV on without anyone watching it and you have lights lit though it is not really needed.
Nobody can do everything but everyone can do something. So can all make small changes, which overall gives a result in the form of reduced energy consumption, making it possible to phase out nuclear power.
We have also the other renewable energy sources like wind, hydro and solar power.
Them, however, for a very small part of the Swedish energy. But with better development in parallel with a better environmental awareness of consumers think so and I hope that these energy sources in the future together will rival nuclear power.