Won't we be better off if we shut down old-style coal plants and replace them with new nuclear powered plants?

Question

The U.S. gets 50% of its electricity from coal.

India gets 70% of its electricity from coal.

China gets 80% of its electricity from coal.

Conversely, France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear.

We could show China the way by shutting down our polluting coal-fired plants as soon as we have built the next generation nuclear plants to take their place.
We need to set a good example for India and China.

China is activating at least one new coal-fired plant every week!
They want to build 55 coal-fired plants per year for at least 5 years in a row.

We should also be building high-speed maglev rail networks all over the country in order to provide a viable alternative to air and highway travel.
With the latest in pre-stressed concrete structural components, we can build an elevated maglev rail system that will avoid the dangers and traffic disruptions associated with rail crossings of surface streets.

Texas and Wyoming are the worst offenders in coal emissions!

Maglev rail trains are operated by electrical current. How does electricity produce Co2 emissions?

Please watch the 60 MINUTES segment that aired on Easter Sunday. It covered the nuclear industry and showcased the French nuclear industry. France is a country the size of Texas with a population of 64 million.
They have 58 nuclear power plants that create the lowest cost electricity in Europe. They have the cleanest air of any industrialized country because of this. Unlike the U.S., they re-process their spent fuel rods and use them over and over again to build new fuel rods. Because of this, long-term storage of nuclear waste is not at all the problem it is here in the U.S.

The "pebble bed" reactor is a meltdown-free reactor that is a smaller, modular reactor that is far cheaper and quicker to build than the last reactors we built over 20 years ago.
It has taken 42 months to get a liscence approved to build a new reactor and another 48 months to build it. This is changing.

We have enough coal to last us hundreds of years if not, thousands. The problem is the Co2 emissions we create by burning coal. We have plenty of uranium deposits in Canada and elsewhere, but we don't even have to continue mining uranium so heavily if we start re-processing our spent fuel rods.

Our fixed-rail transportation system has practically remained where it was 80 years ago!

Maglev rail transport is the next generation of rail transport and will be the cleanest mode of transportation per mile than any other mode of mechanized travel except bicycling!

Check out the INDUCTRACK maglev technology that has been developed here in the U.S. at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California.

The Navy is looking at using it to launch its jets off of the decks of its aircraft carriers and ending the use of traditional steam catapults.
Nasa is looking to use this particular maglev technology to provide that initial thrust when launching its satellites and saving 35-45% on rocket fuel.

The U.S has approximately 103 operating nuclear power plants that produce approximately 20% of the electricity used in the United States!

20% !!!!

This is a shame since it is the United States that led the rest of the world
into the nuclear age.

Please understand that Chernobyl was a GRAPHITE-COOLED reactor and the operators were operating that plant at full throttle with all of the safeguards and safety systems temporarily turned off!

We don't have any GRAPHITE-COOLED reactors in the U.S. and Federal Regulations prevent any U.S. nuclear reactors from operating in the wreckless manner that the operators in the former Soviet Union were operating Chernobyl!

Please do your research and this will prevent you from unwittingly comparing apples to oranges.

The nuclear industry is a complex and diverse one.

We need to build the next generation of nuclear power plants the same way we currently build the next generation of cars, washing machines, water heaters,
etc.

Natural gas fired power plants are a total joke! They represent the most extravagant use of a limited natural resource in order to be politically correct, but completely wrong in every other sense.

The price of natural gas already has and will continue to go up as we deplete a limited resource.

Natural gas is so useful for so many other things like the manufacture of plastics.

Using natural gas to fuel power plants is a wasteful use of a limited resource.

Nuclear energy helps to contain the cost of electricity far more effectively than natural gas does!

Just watch the price of natural gas go up and your electricity bills along with it if your electricity comes from a natural gas powered plant!

If we follow the example of France, we will have one nuclear power plant for every million people.

If we follow the example of France, we will start re-processing our spent fuel rods.They are so much smarter than us when it comes to nuclear energy. They had to go that way initially because they have very little hydroelectric power sources and very little coal deposits. Necessity was their incentive to embrace nuclear energy and that is the main reason why they have surpassed us in developing nuclear energy.

The new "pebble bed" reactors are some of the ones that China is in the process of building as well.

The U.S. will finally begin building some new nuclear reactors and just in the nick of time because we need to begin shutting down the oldest ones and dismantling them as we bring the new ones on line.If you go to Cuba you will see the cars from the 30s, 40s, and 50s kept running, but none from the last 50 years!
We are almost that bad with our nuclear power plants!

Glenn B makes some excellent points and I can't think of a better country suited to the building of a national network of high-speed maglev rail transportation than Australia!

Australia is the place where the longest railroad straight away exists. I forget how many hundred miles it goes on.

They have to keep replacing their wooden railroad ties due to the hearty species of ants or termites that eat away at them.

China has the world's first maglev rail line from Pudong Airport to Shanghai which is only a 17-mile run.

It was built by the German consortium Transrapid, but does not use our INDUCTRACK technology.

What a beautiful sight it would be to see an elevated high-speed maglev rail system conveying people across the vast beautiful landscapes of Australia.
One set of tracks going in each direction with trains leaving every 10 minutes and some making tourist stops at different places along the way! The rest of the trains will continue as an alternative to air travel.

Fear is a thief!

It is the biggest thief we will ever know!

When we are ignorant about anyone or anything, we tend to believe negative information told to us about that unknown person or thing.

We start out as a blank slate, and suddenly, 100% of what we know is negative. This negative "impression" becomes the banner under which we collect further negative information that only confirms the validity of that banner.

Rumor and inuendo negatively color our impressions of historical figures like Aaron Burr and Warren G. Harding when both end up being cast in a much better light upon further objective scrutiny.

As we evaluate a given science or industry, we run into the same kind of pitfalls of distorted perceptions as a result of negative information that was formed primarily by unobjective and sloppy evaluations.

I challenge everyone to study the latest developments in the nuclear industry as well as those in the coal, solar power, wind, and ocean swell energy industry.

"China is building the world's first commercial Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR).

PBMRs differ radically from light-water reactors. They use helium instead of water to absorb heat from the nuclear fuel, eliminating the need to locate PBMRs close to major water supplies.

Rather than using uranium fuel rods, PBMRs use thousands of ceramic-covered uranium "pebbles" encased in graphite spheres. The containment facilities typical in other reactors are unnecessary because the ceramic casings make a meltdown VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The overall cost per unit of energy produced is calculated to be less than half of earlier reactor designs.

Also, PBMRs should be able to extract several times as much energy from each ton of fuel --- which means less radioactive waste."

Wouldn't it be great to see a country like Australia equip itself with an adequate number of these PBMRs to power desalination plants all along the Australian coastline and to power a national maglev rail system.

Answer 1

You might be interested in the newish field of clean burn coal technology. There are coal fired stations being converted to this technology at present.(short term trial). When proved this is likely to be retrofitted to existing coal powered power stations and incorporated in newly built ones.

http://www.csenergy.com.au/research_and_development/oxy_fuel.asp

As simply as I can put it. the co2 produced during the burning of coal (c14) is extracted liquefied then pumped back underground. Basically putting the carbon back where it came from.

There is sufficient coal reserves in the world to supply our power needs for thousands of years, even with the lower efficiency that clean burn technology requires.

Just another note. Both coal and uranium are finite resources while both will solve the power needs for now another solution will eventually be needed. Neither can be replenished at the rate that we are using them. Clean coal technology can produce virtually no co2 emissions , like nuclear power. The bigger advantage is that the waste does not stay as toxic as long.

Electric trains are considered to produce co2 base on the fact that they draw power from the grid. Of course if there where no co2 producing power plants in the grid then electric trains could not be considered co2 producers. Either way I agree that electric train transport is far cleaner than internal combustion and should be developed world wide.

Answer 2

First, I wouldn't be pointing my fingers on any state for coal emmission. California may look good on coal emmision because we have a ban on new coal plants. The problem is that we just move the coal plants to another state. We use the electricity from these coal plants, but the other states get the blame. As fo the Mag lev, it would generate more CO2 that it's worth, if no one uses it. I wouldn't mind if we tax air travel to encourage a reasonable alternative, but that would be an unpopular thought. As for Nuclear power, I wouldn't want India to have more Nuclear plants. They still refuse to sign the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty. The Question is where would we put all the radioactive materials from these plants. I prefer to add more wind Turbine.

Answer 3

Depends on the way you look at it. Nuclear power plants are day to day more 'healthy' than coal which releases Co2. But the major problem is what to do with the toxic wastes from the nuclear power plants. Where would they put it? You can't put it in the ocean due to ocean currents, not out to space as too expensive/how would you get it there? And you can't bury it as it has alot of harmful problems such as turning the water table acidic and ruining biodivirsity.

So, in the long term, no, nuclear power is not the answer...

And don't even get started on the risk of another Chernobyl accident occuring! :)

Answer 4

you could replace the existing coal powered plant's with nuclear ones but how many actual people will want a nuclear power plant within 200-300 km of where they live although nuclear power is cleaner in terms of greenhouse effect it leaves waste which needs to be stored in properly built and maintained structures to keep the left over waist away from people and also underground watercourses and anything else that it could have a potentially hazardous effect on whereas coal does not leave waste that is directly hazardous to everything that comes in contact with it although you may say that it has a dangerous effect on the atmosphere there are alternatives to the current coal powered plants
there are strong research and development programs into clean coal technology or zero emmission coal power plants.

there are also the issues that neither nuclear or coal are sustainable in the long term neither of these are renewable sources of fuel perhaps if the money that is spent on research and development into nuclear power was put into developing renewable forms of power generation such as solar panels and wind turbines then we wouldn't have to worry about pollution of any sort

Answer 5

I have said this since the first time I heard this from his mouth ! I have come to the conclusion he just really don't give a damn ! He seems to think that taking all these jobs is no big deal, he will create new ones ! Well that has really been working for us so far hasn't it ! All the money in the pork package and they can't prove where they have either saved or created a single job ! That is just like all the whining about our dependence on foreign oil, we don't have to be ~ if the liberal tree huggers would back off and rein in the epa we could build much needed oil refineries in this country , hasn't been one built in thirty years because they have made it impossible to do ! We have plenty of oil in our country ! However we have to drill it and refine it ! to the answerer below me , many jobs are just as dangerous ! my husband worked with very high voltage electricity ! Being a cop is dangerous, a solider or working on an oil rig the list goes on and on !

Answer 6

~50% of the electricity here is produced by nuclear and it was announced within the last year that we need between 2 and 8 new reactors.

Yes there are problems associated with nuclear just as there are with coal or oil. Though coal makes 800X the volume of waste you can use coal slag for road fill, can't do that with nuclear fuel waste.

The biggest hurdle to acceptance is not the old "we're all going to glow in the dark" or NIMBY, it's the cost. Nuke plants are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, even though fuel wise they are much cleaner and cheaper to run.

It is VERY difficult to get the amount of money necessary when, for the same cost, you can build 10X as many coal plants as nuke plants. They are tearing down coal plants here or converting them to natural gas.

Answer 7

You are right, we should be getting maybe half of our energy from nuclear, these next generation nuclear power plants cut down on spent fuel and radioactive waste by 40%. Then we should start utilizing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric. Germany is close to getting 1/3 of there power from solar, but in the U.S. our solar is a joke. If the next president sees things this way we should follow, and set a good example. I just hope we put in the kind of attention that we give to space, and the military.

Answer 8

Nuclear power plants cost a fortune, as compared to coal ones. Further, there can be disasters similar to Chernobyl if lax safety and security measures are followed.

France has a smaller area as compared to the US, China and India and hence, requires much fewer nuclear power plants.

Answer 9

And who is going to stand watch over the radioactive waste products for the next 90 million years? You?
Nuclear energy will be irresponsible until we know how to clean it up so that it's environmentally safe for this planet even after the human race is gone.

Answer 10

Yes, it would be environmentally useful to replace coal fired plants with nuclear plants. I will not comment on the remaining question and observations.