Nuclear power plant vs coal power plant efficiency

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Nuclear power plants and coal power plants exhibit similar thermal efficiency rates of approximately 30%, meaning that for every 100 Joules of thermal energy, only 30 Joules are converted into electrical energy. However, nuclear power plants generate significantly more thermal energy per unit of fuel due to the high energy density of uranium compared to coal. While both types of plants produce similar amounts of electrical energy, nuclear plants are more efficient in terms of energy output relative to fuel mass. Additionally, nuclear power is cleaner, producing less atmospheric pollution than coal, despite concerns regarding radioactive waste.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermal energy conversion processes
  • Familiarity with energy density concepts, particularly uranium vs. coal
  • Knowledge of power plant efficiency metrics
  • Awareness of environmental impacts associated with energy production
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the energy density of various fuels, focusing on uranium and coal
  • Explore the thermal efficiency of different types of power plants, including coal, nuclear, and renewable sources
  • Investigate the environmental impact of coal vs. nuclear power, particularly in terms of pollution and waste management
  • Learn about advancements in nuclear technology and their implications for future energy production
USEFUL FOR

Energy analysts, environmental scientists, policymakers, and anyone interested in the comparative efficiency and environmental impact of different energy sources, particularly nuclear and coal power.

  • #31
russ_watters said:
Nuclear's main downside is cost, but that's a complicated and partly non-technical issue
My anti-nuke slip may be showing (my age and upbringing) but I am gradually warming to the idea of nuclear. The worst non-technical issue is the massive timescales involved and the frequent (apparently) failure to implement plans to completion.
UK is actually a small country and progress / survival of large infrastructure projects has not been impressive. Long-termism doesn't seem to apply here. So the future of our nuclear energy supply worries me. It's too important to be left in the hands of people who only look to the next general election and a seat in the House of Lords.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
sophiecentaur said:
I am gradually warming to the idea of nuclear.
Good...because so is the planet. <rimshot>

(This thread is the best ever for straight lines!)
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #33
sophiecentaur said:
My anti-nuke slip may be showing (my age and upbringing) but I am gradually warming to the idea of nuclear. The worst non-technical issue is the massive timescales involved and the frequent (apparently) failure to implement plans to completion.
From a technical standpoint, loss of expertise in nuclear construction and operation is a real problem in western countries that have shirked nuclear. Additional timeline issues exist that are....non-technical.

Let's try to avoid talk of politics here, otherwise this will end up locked like another recent discussion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K