Green Green Business

5 Responses to this post.

1. 

   Posted by wjllope on 10.07.09 at 12:15 pm

   americans are irrationally scared of nuclear power. the exposure of the workers *at the three mile island facility* during this "accident" was ~80 mrem - roughly what one receives in ~10 round trip flights from NY to CA.

   chernobyl was a huge mess to be sure - but no one would consider building such an antiquated reactor today. there are reactor types (e.g. pebble bed) that simply cannot go critical.

   the french derive ~70% of their electrical energy needs from nuclear. good for them.

   cheers

2. 

   Posted by mike1942f on 10.07.09 at 12:15 pm

   In part because of "not in my backyard" and partly because we still haven’t solved the problems of dealing with the radioactive waste that is produced.

3. 

   Posted by Midatlantian on 10.07.09 at 12:15 pm

   Before we accepted the devastating risk of global warming, there were real, perhaps even good reasons to delay investing heavily in nuclear power. While it can be safe, well, so can banking. But people have a nasty way of abusing trusts for short term interest, And there is a real danger of serious problems if the quality of construction is compromised.

   Also, even if the process CAN be safe, fission reactors still produce a great deal of waste that has to be dealt with for a very VERY long time. We will probably not be able to dump our old ‘depleted’ uranium into weapons that we use ’somewhere else’ forever.

   Had we been more clever, and been able to have working fusion reactors now, it would have been a much better arrangement.

   However, all that aside, we are now faced with a situation in which we have to take the plunge - for better or worse - and hope that the move towards fusion is rapid.

   So really, the answer to your question is that we were not aware how limited our options were.

4. 

   Posted by Liza t on 10.07.09 at 12:15 pm

   wait so your saying u want MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! do u know what nuclear means exactly? hmmmmm! all those harmful chemicals causing all those bad mutations out in this world! i don’t think there should be any NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! i cant believe this question MR.!

5. 

   Posted by Nukemann on 10.07.09 at 12:15 pm

   I believe the number one reason is such a large capitol investment with a long term pay back, Executives are short sited, they want to make money now, not wait 10 years for the payback.
   Here are some pos and cons:
   PROS
   !. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
   2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else’s problem.
   3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth’s crust (about the same as tin)
   4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
   5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors.
   6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
   7. Creates high paying jobs.
   8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
   9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
   10. Fantastic safety record.

   CONS
   1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
   2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
   3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
   4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.
   4. High cost of personnel.
   5. Security concerns,
   Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
   Building 100’s of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
   I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
   Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
   Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

Respond to this post

You must be logged in to post a comment.