With all the concerns of global warming, why don't we build more nuclear power plants?
Answer:
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.
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.
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?
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.
because our government consists of idiots.
Nuke plants are kept up to date and as safe as possible continuously. There is no reason we can't build more either except of course for the resistance that will be launched (again) from the liberal's media. ''Global warming'' is currently being embraced because of the money. For instance, here in the U.S., senators in their valiant crusade against global warming will build all kinds of ''green'' projects (with our money) which will all of course go way over budget. They will also give grants (our money) to corporations to assist them in making their factories environmentally friendly. Most of these companies will be owned or will give board positions to these same senators (and their buddies). Of course none of these actions will reduce pollution in fact we will find out years (and billions of our dollars) later that they actually caused more pollution. We won't find out about this without multi-million dollar studies (which as you may have guessed, will be payed for with our money). Don't you know how ''pork barrel politics'' works?
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 ?
people are scared of nuclear power.. Thats all there is to uit. fear is stifling advancment and when thsi happens.. wel u can see.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: