With all the concerns of global warming, why don't we build more nuclear power plants?

Question

The existing plants we have are getting old and use less safe technology, but modern techniques make these plants ultra safe. The waste can be easily disposed of and is small compared to toxic emissions of coal plants. So why don't we build them? Cheaper, cleaner energy. I'd welcome a new nuclear plant in my neighborhood.

I'd gladly use up all our resources of uranium over the next 50 years to stop burning coal during that time. Seems like it gives us time to find other alternatives, and I'd bet we'd find more once we started looking harder. ;)

Answer 1

The political wing of the environmentalists have played off the fears of the public, who largely doesn't understand the benifits of nuclear power and that a nuclear power plant cannot explode like a bomb.

A coal-fired power plant releases more radioactive uranium and thorium into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant ever has. Not to mention the devastating effects of strip mining.

I would like to point out that nuclear waste can be recycled to an extent and used again, its called enrichment and the United States is one of the few nuclear powered countries that doesn't do it.

I would also like to point out that Chernobyl was a "graphite block reactor" a type we don't use in the US so that we cannot possibly have a Chernobyl type accident.

The main type of accident that a nuclear power plant can have is called a LOCA or loss of cooling accident. Where some of the water that containes radioactive isotopes is leaked out of the reactor. Nuclear Engineers have built redundancy into the Reactors to contain these types of accidents.

Answer 2

It comes down to economics and politics, pure and simple. As an engineer, I've seen the budgets on various projects. A 220 MW Coal fired plant can be constructed for about $400 million. I know of a small nuclear facility, I believe it is about a 120 MW unit being reconditioned for around $500 million. Do the math. There are new nuclear power plants being planned, but have a price tag of between $5-$10 billion. It should be noted that these are very large plants (1000+ MW) and are planning for worse case scenario regarding their waste, storing it safely on site.

Answer 3

Why not indeed !! SADLY, California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities.

This is from a law passed in 1976... and then Hollywood came out with "China Syndrome" and killed nuclear power in the USA.

And coal-plants aren't necessarily "toxic"... my brother works at a clean coal COGEN facility that produces lower emissions than most natural gas facilities

Answer 4

A trip to Chernobyl may answer your question.

The owners of nuclear plants have ALWAYS claimed that the plants are safe. The accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere make people naturally skeptical. And the consequences of an accident are enormous. Thousands of people have died from the Chernobyl accident, and many more will as cancer works its way through the population.

I believe you underestimate the difficulty of disposing of the waste. The US alone has thousands of tons of waste waiting for disposal. This is not a small amount by any measure. And while some have argued that burial in salt mines or elsewhere is safe, the long half-lives of radioactive waste must make us cautious. When human civilization is only a few thousand years old, how can we be confident that we can keep something so dangerous safe for up to hundreds of thousands of years?

Answer 5

Nuclear power plants are the best, however, the energy we would get from them is relatively cheap, therefore, the utility companys can not make tons of money with them.
Years ago, I lived (temporarily) in Sacramento CA. There was an article in the newspaper which stated if everyone received their electricity from a nuclear plant - the average monthly electricity bill would be between $10 to $15. Utility companys pitched a royal fit so they closed the existing plant down.
I would also welcome a nuclear plant in my neighborhood for cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy.

Answer 6

Armed with half the information the Bar Room experts have deemed that radio active waste is easily gotten rid of. STOP.

Yes the French have reused the uranium and have gotten more use out of it's radio-activity but the half life is still hundreds of years. That has not changed and we still have to do something with it after we can no longer milk any more energy from this deadly form of power.

And when was the last time you saw a pile of Uranium? It is more scarce than oil. Talk about an energy shortage.

Wake up people.

Answer 7

NO NO NO FIRST THERE IS NOT ENOUGH URANIUM we can recover at affordable prices to power all the world for the next 50 years !!!

Off course nuclear is fine (and I state this as environmentalist) to cover the base load requirement (30-40%) for industrial countries which have the technological level for nuclear.

WHY DO PEOPLE ASSUME URANIUM IS UNLIMITED ???

Answer 8

Good question. But nuclear is a GREAT power source regardless of global warming OR cooling. It is the most effective, environmentally friendly power source available to be deployed in a wide scale fashion.

If GW alarmists would start EVERY diatribe with "NUCLEAR NOW!", I might actually give them the benefit of doubt. The fact that they don't - when THEY are to BLAME for us not having a viable industry nuke energy industry today - speaks volumes of their true agenda.

Answer 9

Nebula,

I'm with you on this one. The $$$ model would have to be worked to a tenth of a cent to get rid of the critics. The biggest 'sell' required would be explaining how and WHERE the nuclear waste would be placed. "Chernobyl" and "Three Mile Island" still scare the heck out of folks - another 'sell' is required on these points. Other than that (in my totally fallible opinion) it shouldn't prove to be difficult to get an OK on construction of one.

Answer 10

first of all, nuclear waste CANNOT be disposed of easily, they haven't even found a way of disposing it yet! also, scientist's predict that we will run out of nuclear energy in the next 100 years,( it is not renewable) so while it is clean (except for the waste) we are still conserving.