Tell me a country that does not want Nuclear technology for energy instead of expensive oil or coal energy?

Question

Expensive to the health and safety of the atmosphere, and expensive at the currency cost.

I know there are some who'd rather not have nuclear technology at all, yes, but the fact is most of the world would rather have the cheaper end of the deal.

Answer 1

Australia is one of the largest uranium producers in the world, but doesn't have a single power reactor!

Answer 2

Iran is sitting on a ocean of oil

Answer 3

The ironic part is that processing oil creates some radioactive waste. We may as well make better, safer, nuclear reactors and save the oil and coal for plastics, gas, etc.. The real core of the problem is that there are too many people in the world, and we need to control our population.

Answer 4

iran!!!

Answer 5

1) Current Australian government halted the previous administrations plans.

2) US built in the 70s.  HUGE cost over-runs bankrupted many small and consumer-owned utilities, several large ones, and Washington state defaulted on its WHOOPS bonds used to construct plants there.

3) We have no place to dispose of radioactive wastes that nuclear facilities generate.  Plutonium is so dangerous that 1 atom in the human body WILL cause cancer.  It has a half life of 10,000 years.  If a N.Plant produces 1,000 pounds of plutonuim as waste, there will be 500 pounds left after 10,000 years.

4) Oil, natural gas/propane, coal plants just dump all the sulphur, CO, CO2, NO, etc into the air.  Want to do the same with plutonium, strontium, etc  radioactive wastes?  Google Hanford Nuclear Reservation.  We're still spending $millions a year to clean up that nuclear fiasco.

5) And Nuclear has its own safety issues Google Three Mile Island PA., And Chernobyl, Ukraine.

6) Nuclear is in no way cheaper, cleaner, safer, or more renewable than oil and coal.  But it would reduce green house emissions.  A trade-off that can be eliminated with use of solar and wind power.