Why aren't more nuclear power plants being built to stop Global Warming?

Question

Why aren't more nuclear power plants being built to stop Global Warming?

Answer 1

IT is extremely inefficient to produce electricity at a remote place  and then transfer it via wire to it's point of use. So much energy is lost during transmission that the entire system is called into question.

Much better to produce your own electricty on your roof or back year and send it 150 feet to your home.

BTW, check out what Germany is doing to bring its entire nation on renewables (particularly wind power).

Answer 2

I would like to see more nuclear power production myself.

It is clean energy, cheaper in the long run, and extremely SAFE!

People tend to fear what they do not understand.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, have not helped either.

The fact that Three Mile Island was nothing but a very minor incident and not a disaster, and that the only real nuclear accident which occurred was Chernobyl, which was an accident waiting to happen due to a bankrupt government, and bypassing all safety procedures, is not enough to convince people of the safety of nuclear energy production.

Also the fact that the death toll in the Chernobyl accident has been extremely exaggerated has not helped.

    * The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.

    * The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.

    * 28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.

    * An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005-06 study.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/cherno...

The media was hyping this all out of proportion.

I recall estimates ranging between 100.00 to 300,000 deaths which could be attributed to this disaster.

The above article shows 56 fatalities as of 2004!

I believe another site claims 82 deaths, but no matter what the real statistics, it was far far far from 100,000-300,000!

I have seen more loss of life in a single apartment fire, plane crash, etc...



Although I am for nuclear power because I know it is safe, clean, and the waste problem has been solved, and it makes sense, I also know that it would have no effect on any climate change, since man can NOT control nature, or could have any impact on a global scale.

What 'going nuclear' should do however, is reduce our dependency on foreign supplies, and reduce our costs for transportation and energy production, making life much easier (financially) for all of us.

That is the theory.

The fact is more than likely that we will still continue to be 'ripped off' by those that are in control.

Answer 3

because people are chichen

Answer 4

Nuclear power is no cleaner than fossil fuels . Ok,so we stop polluting the air. What about the land. Doesn't that count to?

What about nuclear waste is that any cleaner? Wind, water and solar are the clean fuels of tomorrow. We need to focus on those. Nuclear is only good if fusion comes into the picture. We need totally clean energy. I don't want to glow like a light blub, because politicians decide to dump nuclear waste in my back yard.

Answer 5

Uranium is only going to last another 50 years and if we build more it won't even last that long.

Answer 6

Because its not true. Want to know whats totally ironic? Co2 may be a greenhouse gas but it is obviously very weak. The new alternative energy to gas, oil and coal is HYDROGEN!!!!!(water) And that creates water vapor. A real greenhouse gas and its very strong. So what these guys are doing is shooting them self's in the foot. They are giving up a false greenhouse gas for a real one.

Answer 7

Because after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, people are afraid of nuclear power.  That's it in a nutshell.

Now, nobody got seriously hurt at Three Mile Island (although quite a lot of money was lost), and the Chernobyl reactor design would have been outlawed as too dangerous anywhere in the west, but people generally don't know such things.  A lot of people think that "they can blow up" (like a bomb), or "they can melt through all the way to China", or "nuclear waste would poison the environment for thousands of years".  All of which aren't true, but until you deal with those public opinion problems, there's going to be an exorbitant amount of red tape and years of hearings needed to build a new nuclear power plant.  And investors don't like to here that there will be massive up-front costs to a project and years of delay...there are easier ways to make money.

But viewed objectively, nuclear is clearly the best short-term answer to global warming.

Answer 8

They are not being built (in the US) because the brain dead public does not want them. They have been being built in France, and countinue to be built,  and they produce over 80% of their electricity. France now enjoys the cheapest electricity in Europe and there have been no accidents over 50 years.

Its false that Uranium reserves will only last 50 years. There has not been a decent exploration effort to find uranium in decades because it is so d**n cheap. On the other hand tens of billions of dollars are invested to find oil & gas barely to make up for the depletion of yaciments. Thorium can also be used as fuel and its as abundant as lead.

Also, breeder reactors can extract 100 times more energy out of a given lump of fuel and guess what: They leave no dangerous waste!

Answer 9

they're dangerous and it takes a long time for the waste to lose its radioactivity

Answer 10

The Left and the environmentalist have made it near impossible. They can not allow the US to succeed.

Answer 11

Because they arent the only viable option.

Neuclear is good NOW, but in 10 years time it will be outdated and it takes several years to build those place anyway.

In a decade or two we will have renewable and clean energy without the neuclear waste.

With terrorism practically on red alert the last thing the UK or USA wants to do is build more targets for them.

To supply all the energy we need, you would be able to blow one up and set of a chain reaction destroying them all and killing everything (worst case scenario of course =)

Answer 12

Because it would kill Al Gore and other big corporation's golden goose.

Answer 13

As Mark pointed out, they are not the only viable option, better options would be ............................... solar? (10x the cost).................. coal?(even those of us who know global warming is a farce want to get away from this one)  ..................... wind?(not near liberals homes) .................. Ethanol???(Thanks for the world food shortage, and the 2 mile dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi)

well, any way, they take a long time to build(about 5 years) and as was said in the 70's, 80's, 90's and today in 10 years they will be out dated. We just don't know by what, and probably wont know for another 50 years.