Nuclear Power As A Solution To Global Warming?

Question

Nuclear power has the capability to produce great quantities of cheap power 24/7/365 without creating any green house gases.

Nuclear power is very safe, including transporting and storing the waste as this is dome almost everyday without your knowledge.

The USA should be a leader in Nuclear Technology, controlling thee technology and selling cheap, reliable nuclear power to the rest of the world, instead of exporting coal.

Do you also believe in Nuclear Power, and think it's time congress got off their assets to eliminate the barriers needed to build these power plants?

Answer 1

Yes, I agree we need to start developing nuclear now.

But it's not really about legal "barriers". Nuclear plant building stopped mostly because the costs got to be enormous, and public opinion swung against it. There were no new "barriers" that caused it to stop.

The government could do some things to provide incentives and to educate the public. But it's time for private companies to get off their "assets". I suppose a good stiff carbon tax would help.

Answer 2

The reality of nuclear waste disposal is a far cry from the way you represent it. That leads to the misconception that nuclear power is a "plug and play" situation, and that all we'd have to do is make the decision to go ahead. In theory waste disposal is an easy problem, solved technologically in the 1980's. That's sort of true of high level waste, but not at all true of low level waste. It is low level waste that is the greater quantitatively. Regulation of waste disposal including waste disposal related to mining is the responsibility of the States. Any State (or city) has the authority to prohibit transporting nuclear waste across their borders, and many do. Most nuclear waste is transported by rail, so this can lead to very roundabout routes to the waste disposal site. Although the States are responsible, several different Federal Agencies have jurisdiction over specific aspects. These jurisdictions overlap and the laws regulations and rules contradict each other. This makes it almost impossible to legally transport nuclear waste at all. It is only cost effective in the case of some high level waste. Most low level waste is stored in temporary storage, usually near the point of origin. The mining industry has sought to streamline the regulatory side of this since the 1950's. If anything, it has gotten more complicated. If we went all out nuclear, certainly waste related to mining would be an issue.

Other factors: unlike other countries, the USA has never standardized reactor design. In most cases they are designed from scratch. This makes the process slow and expensive, and the reactors less safe and reliable than they could be. The mandatory type of reactor is one of the oldest designs known. The USA, unlike many countries, has privatized the nuclear industry, so in most cases new reactors are the product of competitive bidding, and Union construction and operation. This gives you all the problems associated with those two things. The closest nuclear reactor to where I live is the Wolf Creek facility in Kansas. I watched the whole process. Once the low bidder got the contract, there were numerous construction delays, resulting in cost overruns, which the contract specified would be paid and passed on to the consumer. One example is that the entire concrete floor of the main reactor room (containing all the pipes and wiring) was "accidentally" constructed backwards, or transposed left to right. That required that the whole thing be torn out and rebuilt giving a nice one year overrun for that single item. Not all components are functional, and some are functional only well below their rated level. Only the main reactor is capable of running at full power, and it rarely does. All of the units have to be shut down for maintainence periodically, and they also go down due to system failures, so the entire plant can be offline. In the not too distant future it will reach the end of it's fairly short design lifetime. It will have to be torn down, and it's radioactive components disposed of, and (presumably) a new plant built. I can't comment on it's safety, but having seen how it was built I don't have much confidence, other than they are all supposed to be built to fail safe. I do know that fish and frogs in nearby waterways have been found with multiple limbs, eyes, and that sort of thing. There have been reportable incidents involving venting.

Wolf Creek is in most respects an average reactor in the USA. It doesn't resemble the cheap safe reliable power you describe. To get that, I think the entire industry including the laws would have to be redesigned completely.

Answer 3

That is what they said in 1960. That nuclear electricity might be too cheap to meter. How wrong can people get? Nuclear is the most expensive power we produce, except maybe for solar and wind. Cheapest is hydroelectric. Medium cost is coal, oil and gas. My brother, who worked for Southern California Edison, said the nuclear power plants operated by them were costing the them money, not making money.

However, with rising oil prices and global warming worries, nuclear is making a comeback, even in the U.S. And solar is doing well too. A friend of mine is working with Applied Materials to build a new solar cell plant in Spain. He says new solar cell plants are going up around the world in ever increasing numbers and that the manufacturers think they can cut the cost of solar cells three fold. If they can, solar becomes economically competitive with coal, oil and gas.

Answer 4

Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly electrical power generation option hands down, and it's cheaper in the long term. The Austin/San Antonio Texas area gets most of it's power from Nuclear and people pay 20% less for electricity than people in the Houston area which get their electricity from fossil fuels.

Answer 5

Yes i think it would be an excellent way to solve the problem of global warming. It's not perfect but with this kind of energy production it doesn't rely on the ever changing weather. And i also think that GWB should start having more interest in stopping global warming than sh!tt!ng around in Iraq.

Answer 6

Remember, the founder of Greenpeace is one of the biggest advocates for nuclear power.

Answer 7

Yes we could go that way, even if only stop gap until better forms of power are developed or found.
It would certainly cut down pollution in general.

wow, jello and bob actually agreeing......

Answer 8

Absolutely. I think nuclear is really our best option to deal with our energy problems.

There are one or two problems with it, such as storage, but the question we need to ask ourselves is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? I think the answer is a resounding, 'Yes."

Answer 9

For now, yes. But there are many better solutions for the future.

Answer 10

Also a great exfoliant!