What is the reason nuclear power will never be expanded in the US?

[NNN0LHI]

When we tried this before in the 1970's it was the law suits that doomed them.

[scrinmaster]

1. Anti-science woo-woo types.

[Common Sense Party]

10. Recommend n/t

[alc]

12. that's what I was going to say

I like scrinmaster's wording better than what I could come up with :)

[bananas]

30. The anti-science woo-woos are the pro-nukes

Reprocessing was pushed by anti-science pro-nuke Republican woo-woos during the Bush administration.
The National Academy of Sciences said it was a waste of money, based on that the pro-science Democrats in congress voted with the science and defunded it, and the pro-science Democratic Obama administration finally killed it officially.

Yucca Mountain as a waste depository was pushed by anti-science pro-nuke Republican woo-woos during the Bush administration.
They thought it only had to contain the waste for 10,000 years by on pseudo-science woo-woo Republican magical thinking.
The National Academy of Sciences said it had to contain the waste for 1,000,000 years. The anti-science woo-woo Republicans in the Bush EPA refused to follow the science until they were ordered to by a judge. Finally the EPA made it a requirement that Yucca contain the waste for 1,0000,000 years.

Anti-science pro-nuke woo-woos thought the pebble-bed reactors was super-safe and wouldn't need a containment dome. The Jülich report put an end to that magical thinking. Now they admit it's too expensive to use for generating electricity.

Ant-science pro-nuke Republican woo-woos don't believe the science of global warming, but they pretend it's a solution to the problem. But the scientific analysis by the IPCC and others have shown that it can only play a small role in stopping global warming, isn't needed to stop global warming, and the cost and time to build them only slows down efforts to stop global warming.

Climate Scientist Jim Hansen has also said nuclear energy can't help in the short term, and has major problems in the mid- to long-term. He advocates research on 4th generation reactors, but as we've seen with the PBMR their cost-effectiveness is doubtful, and the technology won't be ready for many years.

The list goes on and on.

Based on the best science, the solution to global warming (if we choose to solve it) will look something like this: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826

It's possible that breakthroughs in polywell or sbsp or 4th generation reactors will turn into magic bullets, only time will tell, but we already have a solution and don't have to rely on speculative technology or nuclear energy.

[crickets]

31. This. -nt

[Pavulon]

35. Jeebus will power the tristate.

no need for coal. Just shut those plants down and pray for the rest. Now how many windmills to cover the gigawatt demands of NYC.

Cost effective compared to pipe dreams? You have to pay to play.

[ColbertWatcher]

50. Yup. n/t

[Tan Gent]

68. Bingo.

There was a time to be wary of nuclear power...and for bell bottoms too.
:shrug:

[sabbat hunter]

2. any lawsuits over modern nuclear reactors

for the most part are ridiculous.

I would have no problem living next to a nuclear reactor.

[TheWraith]

6. If I had to live next to a coal plant, or live next to a nuclear plant...

I would choose nuclear every single day and be glad of it.

[TheWraith]

7. If I had to live next to a coal plant, or live next to a nuclear plant...

I would choose nuclear every single day and be glad of it.

[SidDithers]

9. Apparently, you'd choose nuclear twice a day...

:hi:

Sid

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. But would he choose to store the nuclear waste in his refrigerator?

somehow I doubt that.

[Pavulon]

51. That is what nevada is for..We nuked their ass outright

so that makes them a great home for all the waste. Anyway we need a federal site.

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. OK then

Harry Reid's refrigerator. That spineless fuck deserves it. :evilgrin:

[sabbat hunter]

59. most nuclear waste

is not really waste but can be reprocessed in to new fuel and for medical purposes. Once you take the fuel out of the waste stream, what is left is minimal and low level radioactive.

[madokie]

80. I have some ocean side property here in northeast oklahoma

I'd sell you real cheap.

[Rage for Order]

66. No...

It was every day, and twice on Sundays

:rofl:

[notesdev]

52. I propose a compromise

lawyers as reactor fuel... an idea whose time has come!

[Occam Bandage]

3. Idiots who buy anti-science propaganda. nt

[SidDithers]

4. +1...nt

Sid

[Common Sense Party]

11. +2 n/t

[uppityperson]

82. Good lord, first time I've fit in that category since am against nuke power

Ifthey could figure out a way to safely deal with the waste for however long long time it takes, I might reconsider. Until that time, put this science loving skeptic into the "anti-science propaganda" buying Idiot class.


Wild.

[BobRossi]

5. Aggregate cost.

ROI is minimal.

[Statistical]

21. ROI on current operating reactors are based on GEN II designs.

GEN IV reactors are able to operate much longer (60 yrs vs 40 yrs), are more efficient (Gen 2 tend to be 35% efficient, Gen IV reach 42% efficiencies), can operate longer without refueling (when refueling power output = $$$ = 0 for 2-3 weeks), and are simpler designs (lower cost to build, less to maintain).

GEN II reactors were never designed for power generation. They were designed for propulsion on Navy warships. Due to a lack of other designs in 1950s they propulsion designs were copied and that results in a lot of unneeded complexity, and lack of efficiency.

Japan, France, China all have orders for Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors. They see a substantial ROI especially when fossil fuel prices go up another 50% over the next decade.

[dysfunctional press]

8. over-wrought anti-science mental-midgets who don't understand what it's about.

viva france.

[Common Sense Party]

13. Or who are still living in 1977.

[gauguin57]

14. Nuclear plants can never be made totally safe. There's always a human element involved.

When there's a disaster at a coal plant or chemical plant, dozens -- even hundreds of people could be killed or made sick.

When there's a disaster at a nuclear plant ... hundreds of thousands of people could be killed or made sick, and hundreds of thousands more displaced from their homes PERMANENTLY, and the land hundreds of miles around a nuclear plant would be made uninhabitable for generations and generations. Ask the folks living in the region around Pripyat, Ukraine, how they enjoy their glow-in-the-dark veggies!

If you like nuke plants so much, why not come here, and live near TMI (which still creeps me out every single time I drive by it) -- plus the nearby Peach Bottom nuke plant, where employees and security people always seem to be caught goofing around, playing cards, sleeping, etc., when they're supposed to be operating/guarding the plant.

Of course, live very near those plants and you'll get the bonus of free potassium iodide pills, which you'll need to protect your thyroid from cancer when the inevitable happens.

No Nukes! I marched against them decades ago, and my opinion hasn't changed.

[Statistical]

17. hundreds of thousands... come on.

Chernobyl results in 4,000 deaths mainly due to an unsafe (graphite moderate design which allowed a prompt critical event) and more importantly a lack of containment building.

No US reactor has ever had a reactor breach but even if they did the reactor is contained by an airtight containment structure which can survive a 1000 lb bomb, artillery barrage, or direct hit by a 747 full of fuel.

So if a reactor breached like Chernobyl (which is extremely unlikely as in one 50% chance per 10 million years) it would still be contained by the containment structure.

[gauguin57]

20. Well YAY! Let's kill 4,000 people in order to have cheap power!

I liked the post that shot holes in the "well, France is all-nuke, alla-time, and there are no problems THERE" theory.

[Statistical]

23. Once again Chernobyl had no containment and was graphite moderated.

It would be like saying a rocket car and honda civic are equally dangerous due to the fact that they both have 4 wheels.

Core damage estimates on Gen IV reactors are 50% chance of an event in 10 million years per reactor.

Core damage doesn't even mean a reactor breach.
Even a reactor breach won't breach containment.

To have 4000 deaths would require
a) a core damage event (50% chance per 10 million operating years)
b) reactor breaches from a (never happened not once in the US on commerical power reactor)
c) containment structure fails (Chernobyl had no containment it was like a reactor inside an office building)

a + b + c = 4000 deaths. Never going to happen in the US (or anywhere outside Soviet Union)

[gauguin57]

26. Yeah ... and the Titanic was unsinkable, and the WTC was uncollapseable ... and planes can withstand

lightning strikes and blah blah blah. They can "guarantee" the containment vessel will contain everything all they want ... but we won't know for sure until an even worse nuke disaster strikes. Which it will, because there will always be fallible HUMANS at the controls.

And a nuke disaster would just be worse than any other power-plant disaster ... period.

And I didn't even take into account the WILDLIFE, in addition to the potential human toll.

Do we really want to take that chance, just to have cheap power? I certainly do not.

[Statistical]

27. Cheap isn't a problem. We will keep burning coal.

Rest of world will build nukes and we will kill the planet by building coal.

Everyone knows that it is the elephant in the room.
Congress knows it, President knows it.

Don't worry your electric bill won't climb but the global temperature will.

[armyowalgreens]

34. Please stop calling it a nuke disaster. God you are ignorant.

When you call it a nuke disaster, you are referring to a thermo-nuclear explosion.

Even the Chernobyl disaster had no such event. Contrary to ignorant belief, the nuclear reaction going on inside a reactor core and critical events that have happened in the past have nothing to do with thermonuclear explosions.

Chernobyl exploded because the reactor core went super critical causing a massive spike in heat. That instantaneously turned the water into high pressure steam fracturing the fuel rods and lifting the entire reactor core into the air. The pressure and sudden movement literally popped the reactor containment building. Nuclear fuel and steam shot up into the air and rained down on Pripyat. More radiation got picked up by the wind.

But there was no thermonuclear explosion. And the type of reactor at Chernobyl was primitive, cheap and poorly maintained.

Modern reactors are much safer. According to physics calculations, it is almost absolutely impossible for one to go super critical. And the containment building is much stronger.

[Statistical]

41. One point. There was NO containment structure at Chernobyl.

The soviets decided they cost too much. They were planning on building 200 reactors so costs build up.

The reactor had no containment structure if it had the steam explosion would have destroyed the reactor but the radioactive mess would have been contained inside. The combination of graphite moderation (positive void coefficient allowing uncontrolled reaction) and lack of containment (all western reactors have containment structure) created a fatal combination.

[armyowalgreens]

42. Ah you are correct. There was no containment dome.

[Statistical]

46. Yeah it is insanity. There are still a dozen reactors in Russia with no containment structure

[armyowalgreens]

49. In Soviet Russia, communism protects you from radiation.

[Pavulon]

40. Choices

right now you have some choices to make. You can burn coal, or use nuclear power. There is nothing else to cover the gigawatts consumed in the tristate area alone. Everything else combined does not come close to meeting demand if it was always sunny and the wind blew at 30kts all day and night.

[Pavulon]

39. 40,000 is a better number. Far worse

than most know. 4000 is very low. I am a nuke advocate for sure. But the numbers of people exposed to insane amounts of radiation is horrific. Nuclear power MUST use a standard PWR reactor and be stringently controlled. Failure to respect it is lethal.

Compelling movie worth the time to watch. Most have probably never seen this footage.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319

[armyowalgreens]

33. Chernobyl failed because of human error, and a primitive type of reactor...

Also, no one lives in Pripyat. It was abandoned the day of the explosion and never repopulated.


TMI has only had one problem that was exaggerated by the media and general public.

I suggest you do some research on how many people get sick or die each year from fossil fuel plants. It dwarfs the number harmed by nuclear power.

[Milspec]

75. "I marched against them decades ago,

and my opinion hasn't changed."

That statement stands on it own merits. Well not really.

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. They cant be insured and the US cant afford to insure them any longer.

[Statistical]

47. Why not?

Nuclear reactor operators have private insurance up to $10B in damages.
The govt accepts liability past that.

To date after 50 years of power generation the govt hasn't paid a single cent in claims.
So how exactly can't we afford to pay nothing?
This subsidy hasn't cost taxpayers a single dollar.

[OwnedByFerrets]

78. I cant copy from there, but here is a link to back up my reasoning

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html

[Statistical]

16. Anti nuke nuts who prefer coal over nuclear power.

Coal and nuclear power are much cheaper than any other renewable and can provide a constant level of power.

While I support solar, on a side note I wish Obama would announce something big like a 1 million solar homes initative it and wind are cariable.

To meet a set demand at any point in time will require large scale stable generation. This is known as baseline.

Solar, wind, tidal will NEVER replace baseline generation.

Hydro & Geothermal can be are geography limited and hydro requires dams which have other ecological cost.

So for baseline generation the vast majority of the world (even while building renewables) will use coal or nuclear.
Oil can be used but is too expensive and very polluting.
Natural gas can be used but plants tend to be expensive and the fuel is relatively expensive.

So Nuclear or coal. In 10, 20, 50 years the majority of baseline generation will be nuclear or coal.

[taught_me_patience]

18. NIMBYS. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

19. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl put the lie to the Industry's big push....

to convince the public that Nuclear Power had no risks.

See also: Skyrocketing licensing and fuel costs....

[Statistical]

22. fuel costs are neglible.

Fuel represents 2% of the lifecycle cost of a nuclear reactor. If fuel prices went up 10,000% it would barely affect the bottom line.

[Pavulon]

36. Deaths at TMI? Feel free to name a body..

trick question as there were none. Russians and nuclear reactors dont mix well.

[Junkdrawer]

56. Didn't say that. What I said was that, prior to TMI, there was a big Industry push...

to ridicule as wacko anyone who questioned the safety of Nuclear Power (much like many of the posts on this thread.)

And then Three Mile Island dominated the news at the very same time that The China Syndrome opened at theaters. SNL's "Pepsi Syndrome" lampooned the industry's condescending PR. Suddenly people everywhere were saying "Maybe those kids were right."


Sales of new reactors died well before Chernobyl.

[Pavulon]

73. Now we can die from CO or pick something new (old)

pretty simple choice. Windmills and solar will not cover tristate. Not now or in the next decade.

[sabbat hunter]

61. Chernobyl

used a design that was unsafe from the beginning. It used a graphite control, with no containment dome.

Also the other reactor at TMI, and hundreds of other reactors around the world have proven to be safe for years and years.

[Junkdrawer]

62. Again. the OP asked " What is the reason nuclear power will never be expanded in the US?"

And I said that it was the Industry PR contrasted with the headlines.

There really is such a thing as PR that is too condescending for the industry's own good.

[sabbat hunter]

67. I think

people have an overly negative view of nuclear energy, hopefully that will change. and soon.

[Prospero1]

24. Consider who builds and operates them.....

While the technology is potentially safe, the utilities have a pretty bad track record. Recall the plant in California that was built on a fault line or the Long Island facility that was built upside-down. As long as corporations seek the lowest bidders to construct and maintain such plants and compromise safety for cost savings, I don't think we can trust them. Also, as others have mentioned, they are not economically feasible if the owners have to pay the insurance costs. Those costs have always been borne by taxpayers. I think the real promise for nuclear power lies with fusion technology - such plants only generate low-level waste, they cannot be used to produce weapons, and use hydrogen for fuel. It would make a lot of sense to allocate "Manhattan Project" levels of funding to fusion development.

[Horse with no Name]

32. I remember Bechtel building and running the one in Palo Verde

I don't trust them, do you? Do you want these people controlling YOUR power?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3397.htm
>>>snip
"Bechtel is a privately held corporation that in the span of about one century has grown to be one of the world's largest companies. It has completed tens of thousands of projects and has done work in almost every country in the world. It has participated in the construction of several well-known monumental projects including the Hoover Dam, the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Alaskan pipeline and the Washington D.C. and San Francisco mass transit systems. It develops, constructs and operates telecommunications projects, construction management software, water systems, petroleum and chemical plants, pipelines, nuclear power plants, mining and metal projects and civil infrastructure projects. In 2001, the company participated in 950 projects in 67 different countries, doing $13.4 billion in gross revenue."

>>>snip
"With the help of Stephen Bechtel Sr.’s connections in the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Bechtel Corporation quickly grew to be the dominant player in the business of nuclear power after it was chosen by the United States Government in 1959 to build the first nuclear power plant in America."

"Stephen Bechtel Sr.’s close friendship with Steve McCone was arguably the real reason that Bechtel Corporation was so successful in the business of nuclear power plant building. The two men had made millions together as partners in the California Ship Building Company which built warships for the U.S. military during World War II. After their stint as war profiteers, the two parted ways and McCone started his career as a ‘public servant.’ In 1948, he was appointed U.S. Deputy to the Secretary of Defense, and then from 1950-51 served as Under Secretary of the Air Force (1950-1951). However, it was McCone's position as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) that probably was the most significant in determining Bechtel's future. (Wise and Ross 1974; MacCartney 1989; Riccio 1989)

>>>snip
Bechtel and other large corporations have been able to obtain legal title to much of the world's water supply through the process of privatization whereby goods and services previously considered part of the public domain become the exclusive property of a wealthy class of elites. This latest appropriation of the 'commons' is done within a legal framework designed, developed, and enforced by international governmental agencies that are dominated by the very same wealthy elite that profit from the legislation it implements. Furthermore, the rules and regulations mandated by these multilateral agencies trump the laws of sovereign states. This process is a complete affront to democracy because it disempowers the citizenry of sovereign nations to influence the legislation that affects them. What good is a democratic national government if the laws it establishes can be overridden by corporate-dominated multilateral institutions? Bechtel, a privately-held U.S. corporation, is a major force in this process of privatization and, through its connections in the government and multilateral institutions, is helping to undermine America's ability to defend and protect the interests of its citizenry."

[armyowalgreens]

54. I live about 70 miles east of Palo Verde. That plant scares me.

I remember doing a research project on nuclear and chemical disaster my junior year in high school. I ended up finding a lot failed safety inspections at Palo Verde.

[Pavulon]

43. westinghouse? AP1000. GE

makes them as well , lots of these running. Just not here. Fusion is like solar, pipe dream in application. The manhattan project for that is running at sandia, their Z machine is testing fusion applications.

[Prospero1]

55. is it a pipe dream or is it the manhattan project?

Your statement seems contradictory. I realize that fusion is still in development. I am suggesting that we should allocate the resources to make it happen as soon as possible. Solar exists today and has been improved over the years. Wind, Tidal, and Geothermal are also practical, safe, and non-polluting. The energy interests like to cite the "higher cost" of constructing renewable plants. While it may cost more per kilowatt to build the plant itself, they like to ignore the cost of the fuel (which they are in the business of selling). In addition, there are security, health, and environmental costs. When one considers the total cost of ownership, traditional plants are much more expensive. It seems to me that if we had taken the trillions poured down the Iraq rat-hole (really only done because there's oil there) and invested in renewables, we'd be a long way towards being energy independent.

[Statistical]

65. Nobody looks at just the construction cost.

Cost per KWH = TOTAL LIFECYCLE COSTS / TOTAL LIFECYCLE GENERATION.

Solar doesn't last forever. By about 25 years panels have lost 20% of capacity. By 40 years they have lost 50%.

So a solar plant has a finite life cycle. The cost per kwh is much higher than coal or nuclear.
If all coal and nuclear power plants were replaced with solar your electric bill would triple.

Maybe someday solar will be cheaper but not today.

Right now to build 1000MW of capacity you can build nuclear (high upfront + low ongoing) or coal (low upfront + high ongoing) over the 40-60 lifecycle of the plant they cost about the same. If you build solar the total lifecycle cost for same amount of generation costs about 6x-8x as much.

[Pavulon]

71. Agree, manhattan was a significant portion of gdp

and changed the world. fusion is possible. the sun is a proton proton reactor, and that can and will happen here. Dollars count here.

[sabbat hunter]

69. the LI facility

which never actually opened, was not built upside down. It was used for low power testing before its full power license was denied.

[Marblehead]

25. cost

upwards of $12 billion each, unaffordable.

[Statistical]

44. More like $7.65 billion for 2.

Total lifecycle cost (including construction, fuel, labor, interest, regulatory costs, and operating license) over next 60 years of power generation: $14 billion for 2 1150MW Gen III reactors.

So break even point would be if the reactor can generate $14B worth of electricity over next 60 years.
Can they do it?

Well lets run the numbers. $14B/60 = $235M per year but there are 2 reactors so it would be $117M per year per reactor to break even.

1150MW * 0.95 uptime * 24hrs / day * 365 days = 95,703,000 MWH generated per year per reactor.

At current wholesale rates of $0.03 per KWH = $30 per MWH that would be $287M per year.

$287M - $235M = $52M profit. Of course with any carbon tax we can expect wholesale power rates to rise as coal (cheapest for of electricity) plants have to pay carbon tax and pass that on to the consumers so margins should be higher.

$52M in profit per year, interest to bondholders, cheap reliable power for FL residents and preventing the release of 300 million tons of CO2 because these nuclear reactors are replacing 2 ancient coal burners.

Progress Energy Florida (PEF) has contracted with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and The Shaw Group Inc.’s Power Group for the engineering, procurement and construction of two nuclear units for a proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County, Fla.

Progress will retire the two oldest coal-fired units at its Crystal River Energy Complex in Citrus County after the new, advanced-design nuclear units are built in Levy County. Doing so will reduce the company’s carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 million tons per year—the equivalent of removing more than 830,000 vehicles from Florida’s roads or meeting nearly 60% of the company’s responsibility toward achieving Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s 2025 emission-reduction target.

The contract provides equipment, engineering and construction services for two 1,105-net megawatt (MWe) Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. (Earlier post.) The next significant steps in the project are to finalize joint ownership agreements and to receive the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) schedule for review and approval of the company’s combined license application (COLA). Current plans would be for the units to be operational in the 2016 to 2018 time frame.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/progress-energy.html

Timeline is for first power generation to begin around 2016.

Gen III reactors have 60 year lifecycle and can be extended another 60 with refit.

Also contrary to popular opinion all nuclear reactors pay $0.001 per kwh to the federal govt for waste disposal. The federal govt is the one who has dropped the ball on not coming up with a permanent repository. They haven't suspended collecting fees they govt just pockets the money and does nothing about the waste (kinda like paying for garbage collection but garbage man never comes).

[DCKit]

28. Nothing about exajoules???? This poll is worthless without exajoules. n/t

[OutNow]

29. Three Mile Island

I lived down wind from TMI in Pennsylvania when it had its partial meltdown. We packed the kids off to spend a week with relatives. Why? Because we believed the government was lying about the amount of radiation discharge. Why? Because Dr. Judy Johnsrud at Penn State, an expert in environmental science and a anti-nuke activist, had information from inside sources that the release was many times worse than reported by the governmental agencies.

Just like they lied about Vietnam, and lied about the radiation tests done on U.S. soldiers after WWII, and lied about ......

With our more recent set of lies about WMDs in Iraq, torture of prisoners, etc. etc. I will never believe it when our government tells us nuclear power is safe. Never.

BTW - I am not ignorant on the topic. I worked in power plant engineering (both fossil and nuclear) in the 1970s.

[Pavulon]

38. 100 or 300 mr

three times the government estimates brings it up to background noise. Nothing is safe. However it is the best solution to generate massive amounts of power currently available.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Yucca Montain, the place that was being set up for waste, is being investigated because some

geologists believe the fault line the mountain is on may be naughty.

An earthquake probably wouldn't hurt the waste containers, but it would probably make the containers inaccessible. This is a concern for some people because some people are trying to figure out a profitable use for the waste.

....in addition....

Many people are against nuclear power.

[Forkboy]

48. Because the people in favor are too obnoxious.

:hide:

[NNN0LHI]

57. Why is that?

I could swing either way on this issue. I just know what we are up against in the courts if we try. I've seen this movie before.

Don

[Forkboy]

58. I was just being tongue in cheek.

I'm against nuclear power, and until we have a foolproof way to handle the risks (and we never will as long as humans are involved) I don't see me changing my mind. But I was just having some fun. I see both sides on any issue being obnoxious.

[NNN0LHI]

60. But we will never have a "foolproof way to handle the risks" for anything

Any time you have humans involved there is no such thing as foolproof. Might be setting the bar a little too high on that one?

Don

[Forkboy]

63. When the risks are as high as they are with nuclear power...

...then no, I don't feel the bar is too high at all. The waste alone will be around for TENS of thousands of years, and we still don't have any real solid way to deal with it. The risks are a bit higher than eating too many Big Macs for instance, so I put this one way up there, and the bar damn well better be set high.

[uppityperson]

83. I am with you on what you write here. That is my main sticking point also. The waste

[ZombieHorde]

79. No nukes, no Godzilla. nt

[ibegurpard]

64. Chernobyl

Three Mile Island
stuff like that

[Pavulon]

72. Chernobyl is far worse than you can imagine

nothing , including the bombing of hiroshima and Nagasaki combined equal that. horrific accident. TMI is a non event 300 mrem. Ukraine was exposed to hundreds of orders of magnitude more. literally a everlasting hand of death.

That technology must be controlled.

[backscatter712]

70. Aside from the legalities, I'd say waste disposal's the big obstacle.

Used fuel rods are dangerous for 100,000 years. There's no place on Earth you can put them where they're guaranteed to remain safe and unmolested for 100,000 years.

The alternative is to burn the rods in a reactor - expose them to neutrons, and the process of radioactive decay will be vastly accelerated, and you can turn them into materials that are far less messy, and don't have to be entombed for 100,000 years. You also can recycle those spent fuel rods into fresh fuel for your reactors. The drawback there is that in the process of burning your used fuel rods, you create plutonium, thus you end up with weapons proliferation issues, and a need for very strong security, which may get penetrated sooner or later...

Now if the folks at Los Alamos succeeded in putting together a Polywell fusion reactor...

[Pavulon]

74. Like the voyager probe, we will pick it up on the way out

nuclear waste is a temporary problem. Technology will cover it. Just like the future of man in space, if we dont nuke each other, will far surpass the early years. Nuclear is the only solution to dense energy demands.

[backscatter712]

77. Like I said, I hope that the Polywell fusion research turns into full-fledged power plants.

The Polywell design, especially if they succeed in Proton/Boron-11 fusion, would solve most of the problems with nuclear power - the fuel's cheap and plentiful, doesn't require huge strip mines and enrichment, doesn't turn into bombs, the reactor itself won't cause a Chernobyl, and the radiation issues are far more manageable.

[hunter]

76. Cable television and high fructose corn syrup.

We'll sit on our sofas watching television, burning coal, until climate change collapses our economy

Then we'll die.

[underpants]

81. They can't afford the liability

no one talks about that because that would illustrate how "the market" is against it too

also there have been laws passed to limit their liability but the likelihood of those laws being dismissed due to massive damage still prohibits them

not one penny of private money has ever been spent to build a nuclear reactor in this country, not one.