History of Electricity
It is difficult to figure out how the universe would be without electricity. It affects and touches our everyday life in various ways. Electricity is used in our homes for lighting, operation of appliances, cooking, heating as well as cooling our homes. Electricity is also used in the area of transport in order to move cargoes and passengers over long distances in only a matter of hours. Transmission of data and voice communication through our telephones and computers in real time cannot be possible without electricity.
Power in electrical form is also used in industries for the manufacture of various products. If electricity did not exist, most of the things that we do today would be impossible. It is an undeniable fact that the electricity we are using today is being produced using coal and fossil fuels which leave harmful effluents to the environment destroying the ozone layer that cause global warming. Moreover, fossil fuels we burn to produce electricity is not renewable and time will come in the very near future that it will be exhausted. What will happen to this world without electricity?
Concerned scientists and people all over the globe are exhausting every effort to reduce greenhouse gasses. There is an urgent call to harness other energy sources that Allah has given us to explore for He knew that our resources will not last forever. In a global perspective, we cannot give up the comfort and amenities we are enjoying at present for the reason that electricity can no longer be produced. It can be hypothesized that other alternative sources of electricity can be harnessed and can give the qualities we prefer to prevent the harmful effects of global warming.
This paper aims to shed light on the history of electricity and provide analysis of the benefits that can be derived from harnessing the alternative sources of electricity. History of invention of electricity Discovery of static electricity Alkhuwiaidi 2 The library. thinkquest. org , revealed that the invention of electricity started in 600 BC in Greece (“Discovering Static Electricity” 1st par. ). Thales, a mathematician discovered that rubbing an amber with animal fur cause light objects to stick to the amber. The force that attracts light objects to amber is called static electricity.
During that time, there was confusion between magnetism and static electricity as both of them has the force to attract objects. The website further revealed that other experiments discovered that other materials like diamond also attracted light objects like the amber. Those objects are called insulators. Later on, they discovered that other objects like copper, gold as well as silver cannot attract anything no matter how hard and how long you scrub them. They termed such objects as conductors as they let electricity pass through them. Discovery of magnet and the north direction The library.
thinkquest. org further revealed that about 300 years after the discovery of static energy, a Chinese general accidentally discovered the magnet and the north direction (“Direction and Magnetism” 1st par. ). He placed a lodestone onto a bowl and made it to float. A lodstone is an iron ore with silvery finish often called magnetite ore. The lodstone forced the bowl to turn with it to face the north. The lodstone has permanent poles with one end always facing the north and the other always facing the south. This discovery led to the invention of magnet and compass. Moreover, according to thinkquest.
org (ca 2008), the doctors during the time of queen Elizabeth I were interested in the magnet due to the fact that they perceive magnets has healing effects to the human body. William Gilbert invented a light tool called versorium that resemble a compass but not using magnetized needle. The pointer was balanced and would spin as it react to magnetic attraction even if there was not enough force needed to float light objects. Today, we use a modern version called electroscope. Gilbert called objects that attracted to his versorium as electrics and those that repel non-electrics. Other electric inventions and discoveries
In 1660, according to library. thinkquest. org, a German scientist by the name of Otto Von Guericke invented the first electric generating machine (“New invention and discoveries” 1st par. ). The invention showed that electricity can be transmitted using a wet string as conductor. The website further reported Alkhuwiaidi 3 that in the 18th century, Pieter Van Musschenbroek invented a storage jar called Leyden jar that showed electricity could be stored for future needs. The invention resulted to discovery of capacitors which are now being used in radios, televisions, computers and flash of cameras.
In 1752, Benjamin Franklin conducted his famous kite experiment. At the break of storm, he flew a kite with a stiff wire pointing upwards and attached to the kite. He then attached a metal key to the other end of the string and let it hang close to a Leyden jar. Rain moistened the string and start conducting electricity. Sparks jumped from the key to the jar until it cannot anymore handle more charges. Although there is no lightning, Franklin was able to prove that there was enough electricity in the air and prove that electricity and lightning were the same. He invented the lightning rod and sold them throughout America.
In the 19th century, Michael Faraday conducted experiments in England on magnetism and electricity and led to the invention of motor, generator, transformer, telegraph as well as telephone. He experimented with electromagnetic induction and found out that electricity can be generated at once using the concept. This discovery led to the invention of electric utility plants. The invention of modern light and power Thomas Edison, invented the incandescent bulb which became the model of the electric bulbs we are using at present (library. thinkquest. org, “New inventions and discoveries” 5th par. ). To demonstrate his
invention, he provided light to an area of one square mile in New York City in 1882 using a direct current central generating station as the alternating current was perceived dangerous during that time. Nikola Tesla, an employee of Edison perfected the alternating current (AC) and invented an AC induction motor. General Electric (which was Edison Electric before) became interested with Tesla’s invention and adopted the AC induction motor in refs, electric fans and air conditioners we are using at present. Tesla also set the standard for transmission current frequency or the number of cycles per second which became
the basis of long distance transmission of electricity by our power plants today which is 60 hertz or 60 cycles per second. The electromagnetic motor and fossil fuels The differentsourcesofelectricity. com revealed that the principle behind the electromagnetic motor is “ Alkhuwiaidi 4 “When a magnetic field is in motion relative to a copper wire it triggers the flow of electrons in the wire, creating electricity” (“How to generate…” 5th par). The electromagnetic motor uses large magnets positioned around a shaft or armature which spins at very high speed inside large quantities of copper wirings.
The spinning motion gets the electricity moving through the copper wires. The more copper coils there are and the faster the spin, more electricity is produced by the motor. The motor is being fueled by either coal to produce heat or steam to run the motor as in the case of coal fired power plants or by gas or gasoline. Except for photo voltaic cells and dry batteries, the principle of electromagnetic motor is being used in other sources of electricity. The idea is, there must be some kind of force or energy to make the armature spins and produce electricity. Renewable sources of electricity
These sources of energy have the capacity to renew itself and the supply is considered endless. Moreover, these sources of electricity is known to be environment friendly as the process of making electricity emits very negligible to none at all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 1. Wind energy The energy potential of the wind can be harnessed using turbines that are quieter, more sturdy and more efficient than the windmill. Wind energy can only be harnessed in windy areas. This is for the reason that it is the steady supply of wind blows that make the turbine spin in great speed to produce electricity (ewg.
org, “Wind” 1st par. ). Being so, the electric generation process produces no air and water pollution. The main draw back is it can only be used in windy areas and cannot be turned on and off in demand. There are studies that provide proof that the wind energy can provide 80% of energy needs of the US. The contribution at present of the wind energy in the US is about 1% of consumption and presently being considered as the least expensive and fastest growing energy source. 2. Solar energy The solar energy falling on the earth’s surface can supply the energy needs of the US by 500,000 folds (ewg.
org, “Solar” 1st par. ). The energy from the sun can be converted directly to Alkhuwiaidi 5 electricity by photovoltaic cells (PVs). Due to the fact that the solar energy supply is inexhaustible, its potential for energy production vast but the production is only limited to the area where we can place the solar cells to capture the sunlight. The PVs are 99% silicon coming from sand which is the 2nd most abundant resource on earth. The operation of PVs to produce electricity produces no harmful gasses. The main factor that limits its adoption is the relatively high cost. Another drawback
is we can only produce electricity from solar energy when the sun shines. A standby facility consisting of batteries are needed to store the electricity captured by the solar panels and use it when needed. 3. Hydroelectricity The kinetic energy of flowing water can be harnessed and transformed to electrical energy by making use of its power to spin turbines. The principle of electromagnetic motor is being used here. As the turbine spins, electricity is produced with minimal harmful gasses emitted. The main draw back is the construction of dam and the resulting submergence of the surrounding area which could
have been used for more profitable purposes. The force coming from the flowing water should be strong enough to spin the turbine, otherwise, electricity production efficiency will be severely affected. About 9% of the US demand for electricity is being supplied 5,500 large dams (ewg. org. ”Hydroelectricity” 1st par. ) Nuclear energy: Non-renewable and non-contributor to global warming Another way that electricity can be produced is from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy produces electricity through a method called fission (Apikyan & Diamond 30).
There are about 441 nuclear plants globally, in different countries. They generate over 16% of the world’s electricity. Most countries like France get over a half of their energy from the nuclear power. The nuclear energy sector has experienced great modifications since it began its function (27). A nuclear power station controls the action of Uranium to generate heat in the reactor. When water is driven into the reactors, the water converts into steam which turns the turbines (LeRoy 53). A generator is used to switch the motion of the turbines into electricity.
Uranium is used as a source of energy in power stations. It is a non-renewable source of energy though it is commonly used. Uranium is Alkhuwiaidi 6 a very radioactive substance due to the fact that it gives off lethal rays after a certain reaction. This radiation upon hitting any living things can cause death or illness, making it essential that the reactor should be contained in a sealed building. Although the arguments against nuclear power have been and are still strong and valid, there is an increasing trend in the number of nuclear companies who are given a hand by scientists and politicians.
They insist that nuclear energy is needed as a viable option to increasing need for electrical power and concerns for mitigating global warming. They also argue that problems associated with nuclear power can be solved. The reason why they say this is due to the fact that nuclear power brings in profits, power and authority. Despite these advantages, in March 2007, many Europeans and Europeans organizations insisted that their leaders phase out nuclear power and invest in renewable energy. They supported this because they believe that safety of people comes first above everything else.
Advantages of nuclear energy As global warming has become more of a concern in the past few years, people have begun to recognize nuclear energy as a practical alternative due to the fact that the process of electricity production does not emit greenhouse gases (Ollhoff 80). The nuclear reaction in order to produce electricity produce only steam with very negligible amounts of harmful greenhouse gases. According to alternate-energy-sources. com, less than one-hundredth of carbon dioxide atom is emitted by nuclear power plants compared to fossil- fuelled electricity plants.
Furthermore, accounting for the fossil fuels used in mining uranium, processing it, building and decommissioning nuclear power plants, the environmental consideration remain in the positive perspective (“No greenhouse gases…1st par. ) This goes to show that nuclear power plants do not contribute to pollution of the environment. Nuclear fuel does not cost much, readily available compared to fossil fuels, and can be transported very easily. Uranium is obtained from open mines and the reserves are quickly being depleted. Spent fuel rods can be recycled at 99% success efficiency.
Nuclear fission or the splitting of atom’s nucleus releases great amounts of energy 10 million times greater than the energy released by burning of fossil fuel (“fissile atoms contain…”1st par. ). For this outstanding efficiency, nuclear reactors require small Alkhuwiaidi 7 amount of fuel which is replaced once every three years. The amount of waste produced is very small compared to that produced from a coal burning plant. Nuclear reactors are much secure to work with than fossil fuel plants. A large number of people die every year due to respiratory infections caused by burning fossil fuel. Disadvantages of nuclear energy 1.
Making of weapon of mass destruction Although electricity is very significant in our lives, it has many problems associated with it. Nuclear power being a source of electricity can be used to make nuclear weapons which are threat to people and nations. Nuclear weapons are made from nuclear energy. A basic reason for opposing nuclear use is the danger of nuclear production. As a result of this, there will be uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In line with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that allows countries to build nuclear capacity for civilian purposes, Iran is coming up with a nuclear fuel cycle.
It has basically completed a civilian nuclear power reactor at Bushehr (Ferguson 65). Due to this condition, Iran poses great danger to the community of nations. Although the purpose of possessing nuclear weapon is for defensive purposes and to be used only in extreme need, the nation possessing it can do acts against the international law. Iran is using its nuclear capability to bully its enemies notably the US to gain approval of its acts among the community of nations. The result is tension among the nations and the tendency to withhold any support that could have been provided under an atmosphere of friendliness.
This normally left the country like Iran in a destitute state due to isolation from the support of other nations. It is a common knowledge that Russia is very supportive of Iran’s nuclear program. Russia will source the fuel for the reactor and will take back the spent fuel for storage and possibly reprocessing. Iran also controls four small research reactors, three supplied by China and one supplied by the USA. Two other plants are also thought of being part of a nuclear weapon programme: a factory situated near Arak and enrichment plants under construction at Natanz (Apikyan & Diamond 28).
Enrichment of uranium is a dual purpose process and can be used to generate enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Highly enriched uranium can also be used to make atomic weapons. The plant in Iran Alkhuwiaidi 8 can be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons as can enrichment facilities in Brazil, China, France, Germany and USA. In 1983 military specialists already called for a halt on constructing new fortification facilities (Herbst & Hopely 82). At that period, only three enhancement facilities existed and owned by the German/British/Dutch consortium Urenco.
In 2006, the General Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency called for a temporary moratorium for new uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing facilities for those countries that do not have such technology. This would involve different Iranian equipment, but eliminate the arrangements of Louisiana Energy Services, which is acquiring permit to build a plant. Reprocessing plants cannot be protected efficiently to prevent unlawful activities. Securing the plutonium in spent nuclear reactor fuel elements before reprocessing is relatively simple.
For several years, the elements are so hot and radioactive that they are ought to be self- protected and must be operated with remote equipments. But once the plutonium is taken away from spent reactor fuel elements in a reprocessing plant, safeguarding is quit a different matter (Bodansky 145). Security agencies declare that a commercial plutonium reprocessing plant can be safeguarded with an effectiveness of about 99%. This implies that 1% of the plutonium will be unaccounted for. Specialists commented that the loss of enough plutonium for bombs is a very serious setback.
If there is an accounting collapse with the most deadliest product that mankind can produce, then there should be a reason for concern (Apikyan & Diamond 19). The 1% loss or accounted plutonium is more than enough to fuel the nuclear weapon of say North Korea or China and even Pakistan for years. A nuclear power plant also produces plutonium in its normal electricity generating process. It is basically viewed that nuclear weapons manufactured from reactor grade plutonium is inferior but those manufactured using weapon grade plutonium are better.
Only 6 kg of plutonium are needed to build a simple nuclear bomb (Richards 38). In the year 1995, the IAEA founded an Illicit Trafficking Database to help in the transfer of important information linked to trafficking in radioactive materials. The first 2006 IAEA reported 85 cases of theft of radioactive materials. By the time of reporting, three quarters of the materials had not been recovered. Fifteen more cases were about the capture of nuclear and radioactive materials from persons Alkhuwiaidi 9
who had them illegally, some had intentions of selling them or smuggle them across borders (Ferguson 60). 2. Health hazards from radiation Nuclear power generates nuclear waste that is extremely radioactive. The effect of radiation to human beings was clearly demonstrated when the former Russian KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko was killed with a small amount of plutonium-210. Nuclear radiation takes place when unstable atoms decompose. They interrupt the functioning of the cells that compose our bodies. Extreme radiation destroys cells, this leads to burns, sickness and even death (Ollhoff 75).
There were also claims that radiation fall out from nuclear plant leak result to long lasting deleterious effect on the environment, people and livestock. Though a reactor cannot blast like a bomb, the reactor may get so hot and if this happens the fuel melts and the products find their way into the environment which leads to air pollution (Herbst & Hopely 85). Occurrences of thyroid cancer along with various serious health problems follow after a nuclear breakdown. Crops grown around these areas can contain high levels of radioactive elements and fish in lakes around these areas cannot reproduce.
Moreover, research studies from areas adjacent to Chernobyl nuclear plant that exploded in 1986 pointed to the rise of malignant thyroid cancers (Havenaar 1533). The research was taken 6. 5 years after the explosion by analyzing the health of a good number of 18 to 65 years resident of the areas and compared it with the population health status of a Russian state about 780 miles from Chernobyl (unaffected by the explosion) and also with nuclear power plant. Detailed survey indicated that more than 50% of the population complained of unsatisfactory health feelings and have to consult a doctor and take medications.
Furthermore, the study revealed that the abundance of health problem complaints in exposed regions was tentatively linked to psychological stress related to the disaster. The authors also revealed that in Seveso, Italy, increased mortality from cardiovascular disease was traced to psychological stress from the explosion of nuclear plant adjacent to the area some 6 years after the incident. In Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, psychological stress is still evident from the population 6 years after the nuclear plant explosion (“Introduction”, 3rd par. ).
The Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion resulted to radiation fallout traced in milk and meat. Alkhuwiaidi 10 Nesterenko et al. , revealed that in many European countries levels of I-131, Cs-134/137, Sr-90 in dairy and milk products, grains, meat, fish and vegetables increased by as much as 1,000 fold right after the explosion in 1986 (“Abstract 1st and 2nd line). The authors further stated that up to 1991, the US still import food products laced with Chernobyl fall out from Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia and West Germany.
In 2000, the authors reported that almost 90% of wild berries and mushrooms exceeded the permissible levels of Cs-137 in areas adjacent to the nuclear plant including Ukraine. In 2005-2007, 7-8% of milk and 16% of other food products from Mogilev and Belarus farms exceeded the Cs-137 permissible level. Due to weight and metabolic differences, the radiation exposure of a child is 3 to 5 times higher than adult eating the same diet. The authors revealed that from 1995 to 2007, almost 90% of Belarus children had levels of Cs-137 accumulation of 7,300 Bq/kg whereas the permissible level is only 15-20Bq/kg.
Considering that 90% of the fallout is due to Cs-137 and Cs-137 half life of 30 years, then the contaminated areas will be extremely radioactive in the next three centuries. Related to the persistency of radioactive substances in all of Europe as a result of Chernobyl explosion, Cardis, et al. reveled that although the increased risk of thyroid cancer among children exposed to the fall out has been clearly demonstrated, the impact of the accident on the cancer risks elsewhere in Europe was hazy (“Abstract” 5th line).
Based from their latest estimate using the latest dosimetric models and radioactive fallout data, the Chernobyl may have caused 1,000 cases of cancer of the thyroid and 4,000 cases of other cancer in Europe which is about 0. 01% of all the cases since the explosion. The authors predicted that based from their model, that by 2065, about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation. Chernobyl radiation fallout was traced by researchers all over Europe , North America and Asia.
Yablokov and Nesterenko revealed from their study that the contamination from radioactive elements spread over 40% of Europe that includes “Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Romania, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Iceland, Slovenia” (“Abstract 2nd line). The fallout was also observed in Turkey, Emirates, Georgia, Armenia, China, Turkey and Northern Africa. The authors Alkhuwiaidi 11 estimated that nearly 400 million residing in these areas were contaminated with the radioactive fallout at a level of 4Bq/kg which is twice the no effect level permitted.
Moreover, up to present time over 5 million people including 1 million children still live in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia with dangerous level of fallout. The authors also revealed that other people in the countries contaminated with the fallout were neglected by International Atomic Energy and World Health Organization despite the fact that they were exposed to 50% of Chernobyl radionuclides. Health and financial concerns were only addressed to Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia. 3. Prohibitive cost of establishing a nuclear power plant and negative social implications
Although the cost of fuel is low, the real cost of generating energy is greater than other sources because of tragedy, control, and storing the waste. It is quite expensive to build a nuclear station. In a competitive electricity market, companies will have difficulties finding investors for such a dangerous, long-term, politically responsive project. Financial institutions draw back their support and public money is used to fill the gaps (LeRoy 50). Building of the Bulgarian Belene nuclear power station started in 1980s but for reasons of protests and economic difficulties, the project came to a stop in 1990s.
The Bulgarian government started the Belen project in 2003, in agreement to first close down four other blocks of nuclear plants; a condition given by the EU. In 2006, the UniCredit Group, and other banks withdrew their support after public demonstrations from their customers. The banks knew the risks involved and the fact that their customers did not want them to be associated in any nuclear investments. At around the same time, due to news of being a nuclear power advocate, investment consultancy standard revealed a drop in their corporate rating. This was due to its participation in the project.
Some banks like Landes bank denied their participation in the Belene project, although they had been mentioned as interested (Apikyan & Diamond 12). There is a lot of disagreement about how much it actually cost to build a nuclear reactor. Figures are only approximate because after Chernobyl, the market for nuclear power plants collapsed and hardly any new were built in Europe. In the Philippines, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was built from 1974 to 1986 at a cost of $2. 3 billion which was paid by taxpayer’s money in 2007 (abs-cbn. com 1st par). The BNPP was never
Alkhuwiaidi 12 used for its purpose and remained mothballed due to safety-related protests from the citizens until the Marcos regime who built the nuclear plant was toppled from power in 1985. The Philippine Energy Commission revealed from their study that the Philippines is a net importer of electricity and a lot of savings can be realized if the BNPP will be rehabilitated. According to critics, the nuclear plant has more than 4,000 defects thereby risks are associated with its rehabilitation and operation not only to the country but to the rest of Asian continent.
The cost of rehabilitation was placed at $1 billion last February 2010 by Korean Electric Power Corporation. Up to this moment, the rehabilitation has not started due to the fact that the people are fiercely against it. They can still remember the horror of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Bhopal and Three Mile Island disasters. 3. Nuclear waste disposal and supply of uranium Majority of the problems are about storage of nuclear waste. Radioactive waste must be kept in underground containment permanently. It must remain contained for many years until it looses its radioactivity.
An article written in January 2007 in Nature demonstrated new doubt on nuclear waste storage safety (Herbst & Hopely 90). Synthetic material that experts thought would contain nuclear waste may not be as safe and durable as they might have hoped. This material has proven to degrade faster and may not be in a position to contain waste for a very long time. The following example illustrates some of the challenges that relate to underground storage. The storage of Asse salts mine which started in 1978; radioactive waste was stored in a former salt mine in Asse, Lower Saxony, Germany.
The waste was meant to be stored forever in dry salt. Study revealed that since 1988, salt lye water had been flowing into the mines haft daily. This made the waste drum to corrode. The former salt mine now are with vacuum spaces and is falling down with risk of subsiding. An October 2006 investigations revealed that the combination of rust and radioactive waste could result to explosive gases, which build up pressure, forcing radioactive material out into the ground water system. The German reacted to this incident by filling the mine with 2. 5 million of salt in 15 years.
Report from the ministry of science and technology indicated that the government had to pay a lot of money due to these costs (Apikyan & Diamond 22). Another related problem with nuclear waste storage is mining of Uranium for fuel. Getting uranium Alkhuwiaidi 13 from its source can have serious consequences to the people around as well as the environment. In the process of getting uranium air becomes contaminated with radon. Radon increases chances for people getting lung cancer. Ground waters from the mines pollute the water bodies (LeRoy 47).
Questions arise whether modern technology is in a position to provide secure, long term storage and whether in future people should be expected to maintain and protect the storage sites. Uranium is the sole provider of nuclear power. It will take just a few years before the uranium sources will be depleted and people will opt to extract uranium from the ground. To date there are no articles that state new sources have been found. When the idea of using nuclear power came into people’s minds it was thought that producing more uranium by recycling will solve the problem of few fuel resources.
Many years of investigation has revealed that the breeder cycle is technically possible but not feasible considering the safety aspect (Bodansky 115). The process of getting and processing uranium takes away dangerous materials from their origin where there are much secure and can result to harm and change them to a form, making it possible for the dangerous materials to find their way into the environment. Dumping of the known waste rock are a risk to the people, and the environment since they produce radon gas. The seepage water contains radioactive materials and toxic substances (Zwaan 285).
When the pumps are shutdown after closure of the mine, there is a risk of groundwater contamination from the rising water level (Apikyan & Diamond 15). In Saxony, Germany the Helmsdorf pile near Zwickau contains 50 million tones of solids and Culmitzcch pile in Thuringia near Seelingstadt contains 86 million tones of radioactive nuclear waste. 4. Limited useful life f nuclear power plants The good thing about nuclear power is that it does not emit carbon dioxide directly from a climate point of view. But the processes involved are complex; dealing with highly radioactive materials.
The energy used in these processes partly comes from fossil fuels which emits green house gas (Bodansky 120). Nuclear power uses the electricity it generates; therefore the produced heat is wasted. Co-generation systems producing both electricity and heat are more favorable in reducing emissions than nuclear energy. If the reduction of green gas production is going to be reduced, cost must be reduced effectively. A good comparison of the costs of greenhouse avoidance using nuclear energy with the abatement costs of Alkhuwiaidi 14
alternative power generation options must be based on life cycle emission analysis (Apikyan & Diamond 25). Until now, the average lifetime of closed reactors is 22 years. In the next twenty years many of the present nuclear plants will be closed because they are past their useful life and may be having technical and safety-related problems. On the average, constructing a nuclear power plant takes about ten years at a cost of about 3 billion Euros. It is expected to last for about 25 to 30 years. So even though we start constructing them today and about 280 for the next 20 years, we will be left with only a few number ofSample Essay of Edusson.com