So, if we went back to generating electricity from nuclear energy, how do we deal with...?

Question

the uranium minning issues; access to deposits, and the huge amount of rock overburden that must be moved for a tiny amount of fuel (uranium is quite scarce...)

the waste; safe transport and storage?

security; terrorist attacks on reactors or waste storage facilities

***Why go back and subsidize this industry when it has failed and has been dorment for 30 plus years now, when many of the alternaives have not had the same monitary support to prove their worth?

Answer 1

Umm, which country is that? Just curious. What's the energy industry like?

Answer 2

I understand all of those roadblocks with nuclear power, however, the only other viable alternative energy options are solar and wind, that don't emit significant carbon emissions.  When compared to the dirty coal-fired power plants that populate our electric generating fleet, nuclear emits very little: carbon, sulfur dioxide (causes acid rain), nitrogen oxides (causes smog) and mercury (poisons fish in lakes/streams).  

Unless we can overcome the cost disadvantages with solar and wind, it appears that nuclear may be the best option.

Answer 3

The terrorism scare is just that I think- something to terrorize us from our own government so they can do whatever they want.   Breeder reactors can produce more fuel than they use, but that fuel is plutonium (!!!!!)   The reactors we use now only get 2% of the available energy out of the orriginal fuel.   Put enough money into nuclear energy and it can be safe, just not profitable over any other power source.     Wind at good sites is now cheaper than nuclear even with its billions in government subsidies and guarantees.   I lived near a windfarm once for a month and a half- only 2 hours of that time was the wind not blowing enough to turn the blades so a properly placed wind farm is not a variable form of energy.   Also, geothermal would be the best base load power source, but its not getting much support in the US for some reason.   Of course conservation and use of new technologies should be our first step in reducing power usage.

Answer 4

Well you've found something you and I disagree strongly about.

Mining uranium will have a negligible impact.

We can build plants that are safe and safe from terrorism.  We're really good at that kind of engineering.

The waste problem has been technically solved, both transportation and storage.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

It's just a political problem to designate a site.

You might want to read this book.  

http://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Gaia-Earth...

James Lovelock is one of the most respected ecologists of our time.  This is a highly unusual stance for him.

We should also make a substantial effort to develop and deploy wind, solar, and biofuels.  But, in the short run, nothing but nuclear can economically do the heavy lifting in the transition away from fossil fuels.  Particularly when you add in hydrogen/battery powered transportation.

A reasonable goal might be to get away from nuclear in 50 years.

Answer 5

wonder if tidal energy is harvested?

I read a scifi book about it running an underwater city.

Answer 6

Dormant may be a little over stated as my source shows

Also research is working toward "Recycling" spent fuel rods as in theory 90% of the so called waste can be returned to new fuel rods.