Why hasn't a new nuclear plant been permitted since three mile island in the 1970"s?

Question

We've had Democrat Presidents with Democrat Congresses and Republican/Republican, yet no new nuclear plants ahve been permitted. What gives? (I realize some newer plants have come on line since then but they were permitted in the 70's.)

mbush40 - As I said, ther have been solid republican majorities.

environmental activist don't sit in government and make laws!

I say dispose of the nuclear waste in the deepest part of the close by ocean, mid Atlantic ridge.

Our water reactors are nothing like the Russian reactors.

Bert T - Agreed.

I guess we'll have to use a flux capacitor

Answer 1

we need to remove red tape - to drop construction costs - like other countries have (japan.china,france, ect.).

then we need to go to a closed fuel cycle like other countries have (japan, china, france, ect.) - this increases the lifetime of available fuel and reduces and detoxifies waste products.

simple really


edit

the "not in my backyard" argument is real, but is based out of complete ignorance.

many people have coal plants in their cities and "backyards" and never realize that a coal plant realeases far more radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. In fact, the background radiation reading near coal plants is far higher than nuclear plants.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

this isn't even considering the other toxic chemicals spewing from coal fire smoke stacks

Answer 2

Every time we've had a president who wants to build more Nuke plants, OPEC raises production output, which lowers the per-barrel cost of crude oil, which make gasoline and diesel inexpensive to buy and use in power generating plants, who are loathe to spend THEIR billions building nuke plants when they can spend YOUR billions buying foreign oil at whatever price.

Besides, imagine for one second at the entrance to your neighborhood, a big bright shiney new sign, which says:

"Coming within Ten Years! Added Employment! A Boost to the Economy! We're Building an Energy Independent America and We Need YOUR Help! It Has Been Determined Your Neighborhood is Geographically Advantageous for the placement of our soon to be completed "Nuclear Power Grid",

...none of your homes will be damaged or moved, but you WILL find your property values just plummetted, but it doesn't matter: You wouldn't be able to sell a glowing house for ANY price. You're STUCK living next to the nuke plant, hot stuff.

And once again, we run into that DELIGHTFUL human condition known as NIMBY.

Not In My Back Yard.

I have a solution. Actually Robert Heinlein came up with it before I did, but Im gicing credit, so shaddap.

Nuclear submarines have never had so much a s aburp from any of their reactors. Why such a great safety record at sea but land based plants safety records are so much less successful? Build em at sea, build em on abandoned oil rigs in the middle of the ocean, build em in power piles and launch em into orbit (high enough so an accident wont irradiate the entire planet), but if youre GOING to build em on land, build em underground, in some geologically stable place, NOT California like some brainless questioner suggested.

Answer 3

Actually, the huge Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona came on line in the 1980's.

The problem still exists that one nuclear accident will cause major problems for a very long time. Do you trust the technology enough to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? Is it worth risking the loss of huge tracts of land for centuries when we can't even decide what to do with the nuclear waste?

The Russians trusted their experts too, but now tens of thousands of their people are dying from cancer related to the nuclear contamination and there are several huge areas in the former USSR which will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

If you say that an accident will never happen then you are simply dreaming.

edit: Someone gave me a thumbs down - interesting since I mainly quoted facts which can be easily checked or asked questions which were meant to stimulate thought, not to belittle someone else's point of view. The comment about dreaming is in there because people refuse to see the reality of what has already happened. No, I don't want another nuke plant in my backyard - I don't even want it to be in your backyard.
EDIT #2: Put nuke waste in the ocean? The Soviets did that and we loaned them billions to clean up the waste. Oh well, it's only money.

Answer 4

First the Fossil Fuel Lobby has fought Nuclear Power for 60 years.

That said General Electric has a Nuclear Reactor factory in San Jose CA building and selling plants to Nations the world over.

We could easily switch to Nuclear.

As for disposal take it back to where it came from. By using a reverse concentration process put back in the mines where it came from.

Answer 5

There are preliminary plans to construct greater nuclear ability flora, however greater particular innovations isn't imminent. the present administration is making an attempt to take a seat back the policies on the form of latest nuke flora. it is partly because of the fact we want possibilities to petroleum-based ability flora, yet in addition because of the fact reactor technologies has greater fairly much 30 years previous the technologies utilized in TMI. TMI-a million continues to be in operation, by potential of the way. additionally, the three Mile Island incident isn't strictly why there have been no new nuclear plans contained in the U. S. for fairly a whilst. That incident grow to be certainly in contact, yet in fact provoked this style of public outrage that it grew to grow to be a dropping financial wager. it could have value lots to artwork contained in the direction of the bureaucratic and public family members mess that it purely wasn't properly well worth the attempt. As oil fees skyrocket, it is changing.

Answer 6

Because we can't agree on what to do with the nuclear waste we have.. so a lot of it is just sitting at the plants. Until that problem finds a practical solution.. don't expect more sites to be approved.

Answer 7

we are living in the dinosaur age when it comes to the fuel we use. No pun intended. Put it is almost comical that we are using some of the same fuels we used over a hundred years ago.

even nuclear powered plants have been around for several decades. We like to say we are the greatest country on the planet, why don't we prove it.

Answer 8

To much red tape. It's easier and less costly to build smoke belching coal plants using coal mined by miners whose lives are constantly in peril. Kinda the liberal environmentalist catch 22. They hate filthy coal burning plants, but then only allow those types of plants to be built. Doh!! (Essentially, the fear of nuclear energy today has been relegated to nothing more than hype and superstition as though nuclear energy has some kind of evil spirit. Environmentalists are nothing but bloody Neanderthals.)

But what's interesting is that almost all large Naval vessels built over the last several decades have been nuclear and as a result nuclear technology has advanced incredibly.

Answer 9

Because it is amazing how fast an entire neighborhood turns into "liberal environmentalists" when someone wants to put a nuclear power plant or waste dump in their back yard.

Just goes to show you how very unrealistic views of most situations, that right-winger really have, as they keep ranting about it being "liberal environmentalists" fault.

Answer 10

I thought they changed the name of it to 1/2 mile island??? Does that count as new?