France has a very safe, efficent nuclear power plant facility.?

Question

it supplies 80% of electric power. they have a facility that recycles waste to be reused. why isnt the U.S. doing the same to cut back on carbon fuels.

Answer 1

New nuclear power will come to the US, soon. Many environmentalists now support it because they see global warming as much more of a threat.

We'll also need conservation, solar, wind, biofuels. This is a big problem, no one thing will fix it, we need all our tools.

Answer 2

This is a very good question. From what I have seen the problems in the U.S. are largely regulatory in nature, driven by an unreasonable fear that is fed by sensationalist media and the environmental lunatic fringe.

For example, many people in the U.S. believe that nuclear explosions occured at both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, in fact there were not nuclear explosions at either site. Reprocessing of spent fuel has been around for many years. Current technology produces some weapons grade plutonium. This material can also be used in nuclear power plants, but many are concerned that it would eventually find its way into nuclear bombs. Again, the fear is somewhat irrational, but it is there.

The regulations that have sprung up from these fears have increased the cost of nuclear power reactors to the point that they are simply not competative with coal, oil or natural gas fired plants. The fear of plutonium has prevented us from reprocessing spent fuel so we must store these rods at considerable extra cost, further reducing the economic viability of nuclear power plants.

Answer 3

Generally speaking most nuclear power plants are very safe, including our own.

But public opinion in the US was forever changed by the partial meltdown of the unit 2 reactor on three mile island. While the worst civilian nuclear accident in US history nobody in the plant of surrounding community was killed or injured.

Also if you want to see a really nice reactor setup check out the CANDU reactors they use natural uranium rather than enriched uranium and heavy water as the moderator.

Answer 4

We should do the same - Nevada is the stumbling block. Nuclear power is the answer to BIG electricity needs unlike other "renewable" sources. Bio fuels barely provide more energy than they consume to make. Subsidized corn prices keep going up with consequences for those for whom it is a staple (eg Mexicans) and increasing the cultivated area is not a good thing. Wind and solar are expensive and not available most of the time. In any case solar cells "wear out" not that long after generating as much energy as it takes to make them.

Answer 5

I spoke to someone who was familiar with a old nuclear power plant in the UK that was no longer used. Apparently it is just sitting there, while they try to figure out how they are going to pull it down, as it is radioactive. If we are going to build nuclear power plants I think we need to know how we will dispose of them when the time comes.

Answer 6

france gets its uranium from africa, where the
people near the mines have paid a price
with their lives.
as did the navajo indians of arizona, who
mined, "safe, natural uranium" and died a
slow death, to bring "nuclear energy" to
america.
the tons of nuclear wastes lying around the world,
are ticking time bombs. nobody really knows
how to dispose off this waste.

why can't people just think of alternatives...
like using less energy for example?
an average american's uses 40 times the
resources used by a third world citizen.

guess it is time for americans to get together
and cut down on the energy intensive lifestyles.

the most stable element of the
radioactive group is Lead.
and lead is one the most
toxic metals.

people are asked not to
go in for X-Rays these days,
but are told that uranium radiation
is safe!

the thing about radioactive elements
and their pollution is that
you don't see it, nor smell it,
nor feel it. It just works a slow
death on people.

Answer 7

of direction we are no longer secure! yet nuclear is any such risky source of skill. despite if the skill-plant equipment is a hundred% fail-secure, interior the direction of the regulation of averages there'll come a element while it is going to fail-risky, it is merely a count of time. for my area if some thing that's so risky if it is going incorrect, and there are different forms of skill aspects, then we would desire to constantly no longer use it.

Answer 8

The environmentalist are the ones that has prevented us from going more nuclear.

Answer 9

Because of the N word. It is political. People are afraid of (whispers) ...nuclear... reactors. It reminds people of radiation and cancer and bombs and Chernobyl.