Nuclear Power - Dangerous or a Good Alternative?

[TruBlu]

OK so I figured I would probe our community here about the idea of America adopting nuclear power. I am no expert on nuclear power and don't expect anyone else to be either, but I don't think that can stop us from talking about it and maybe learn a few things in the process.

My question is this: Why is America not undertaking a large scale nuclear energy program?

I ask this because currently one of the biggest topics surrounding the presidential candidates and their running mates is our dependence on foreign energy sources, mainly oil. I support the idea of nuclear energy, and my best example of nuclear energy being employed safely, efficiently, and lucratively is France. 75% of their nation's energy is nuclear, and they even export electricity generated by nuclear plants for revenue.

If they French can do it, why can't we? I mean its a win-win really: reduce our dependence on foreign oil and generate more income for our economy. The new plants would create jobs to build those plants, operate, and manage those plants.

If its done in a way where the margin or error is minimal, whats the problem?

Here is my source of information on French nuclear energy - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

[soccermark23]

I would say a big chunk of it is because many people are scared of some kind of nuclear incident. We have a nuclear plant approximately 20 minutes from my house and I know people who have lived in the area for years and are still somewhat scared of it.

I think a lot of people hear the word 'nuclear' and automatically associate it with the atom bomb or the incident in Chernobyl. That brings up images of fear, and people just get plain ole scared.

[Infinite]

The key problem is storage of the spent fuel rods, for two reasons - one, where to store them?, and two, the most efficient use of the fuel rods to make storage easier has a nasty product - weapons grade nuclear material.

There is a storage facility opening underneath some mountain in Nevada in 2010, and that's the temporary solution for now. In my personal opinion, nuclear power isn't a viable source of energy in this current era. It works in certain situations, especially naval vessels and in my opinion, would work well in space.

[flyBoy2010]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is the "leftovers." Spent nuclear fuel that is still radioactive and therefore still dangerous. Plants currently have to leave their waste in containers in their own backyards. The Yucca Mountain facility is a good idea but has two major problems.
1) Transportation. How do we get the waste to the mountain. Waste traveling to the mountain would need to pass through cities, towns, and other populated areas just to reach the mountain. What happens if one of the casks the fuel is shipped in breaks open in a train wreck or if a semi-truck rolls over?
2) Safety. The mountain is in an area of know seismic activity. The original site of the canister cooling station sat immediately above the Bow Ridge fault line. The site has since been moved, but the mountain is still in an extremely active seismic area.

I do agree that more needs to be done to solve the energy crisis, and building nuclear plants would help lessen our dependency on coal. However, the bigger problem is how to lessen our dependency on crude oil, foreign or domestic.

[flyBoy2010]

Originally Posted by soccermark23

I think a lot of people hear the word 'nuclear' and automatically associate it with the atom bomb or the incident in Chernobyl. That brings up images of fear, and people just get plain ole scared.

It's not just Chernobyl, but also the 3-Mile Island incident, which happened right here in the US.

[AirForceAlways]

The way we (as a planet as a whole, not just the U.S.) manage energy is still in its infancy. One thing you have to remember is that we realy began the mass production of gasoline-powered automobiles right around only 100 years ago. We've definitely come a long way, but we still can't make an all-electric car that can go more than something like 60-80 miles and still carry passengers and baggage, or make a gas powered car with more than 50 MPG. We're taking steps, but they're only baby steps.

Nuclear power is no different. We still have the problem of "leftover" materials produced from nuclear reactions. Realistically, unless we all want to die in a nuclear winter or something to that ridiculous extent, we might have to just keep using electricity and oil the way we know how to until we can come up with a safe and viable process of completely using nuclear energy, without leftover products to pollute and possibly harm the planet. I do believe nuclear energy has a bright future, but I also believe we should spend a good amount of money, time, and effort to research all that nuclear energy has to offer before we go ahead with nuclear power.

[TruBlu]

When it comes to wastes, this is my rebuttal: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html. Understandably, I am not refuting your argument with a direct opinion, but instead the opinion and facts of an association. Of course this information is bias (their little phrase is "representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession), but so would the site on denouncing nuclear use.

Storing nuclear wastes has been a safe practice in many countries, and think about it this way: in the years of developing and awaiting the operation of a nuclear facility (about 3-5 years), new practices for disposing of and storing this waste can be produced.

[Woody]

The problem with nuclear energy if it goes wrong it goes wrong badly its not
cheap and getting rid of the waste and storing it is a problem .Renewables seem a better option .As fusion seems a long term bet .

[ang1sgt]

Gentlemen,

the 3 Mile Island incident was NOTHING when compared to Chernobyl. Lets get facts straight here and keep on track.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...mile-isle.html

[flyBoy2010]

Originally Posted by ang1sgt

Gentlemen,

the 3 Mile Island incident was NOTHING when compared to Chernobyl. Lets get facts straight here and keep on track.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...mile-isle.html

I understand that Chernobyl was a much bigger incident, but the point is that accidents do happen and not even the US is immune to these accidents.