Why don't we build more Nuclear Power plants? Why don't environmentalist support Nuclear Energy? Political?

Question

It's almost mind boggling. After doing countless hours of research for a physics project this past semester on renewable energy, the conclusions seems to favor nuclear energy more and more. Research looked at the cost, output, affect on environmental/ecological concerns, global resources available, cross reference analysis with other energy (solar, wind, water, and geothermal) and of course safety (most surprisingly that nuclear energy is actually really safe and the term "nuclear waste" is used way out of proportion and in fact low-levels can be reused again as energy).

Answer 1

Sorry you got such a poor grade.   Maybe you should have done more research.    Cost is enormous for nuclear- even more than wind or solar when all costs are added in.   Just because the government (taxpayers) act as the insurance agency that would have to cover the trillions of $$ of damage if a reactor had a leak or explosion doesn't make it cheap.   Same for deconstruction and storage of materials for tens of thousands of years.      Nuclear is safe?   Tell that to the prez who sees a terrorist around every corner.    Remember, we are supposed to live in fear!!!!

Answer 2

Just watch , the Democrats will do nothing to produce more energy , and relieve our energy problem.  

Answer 3

A few incidents in the past (note: Chernobyl) have led a vast majority of the people to believe that nuclear energy is dangerous. Just the ideas that come to mind with the word "nuclear" make people consider it to be dangerous. It's mostly a political thing, really. It's just another case of the majority being uninformed.

Answer 4

Nuclear power is far from being the answer to the world's energy needs and solving climate change.

You must realise that you need uranium to power a nuclear reactor, but not just any uranium, you need enriched uranium.

So, first you need to dig up the uranium, which means you pollute through the use of petrol or diesel driven vehicles.  Now you have to clean up what you dug up, just to find some uranium.  Brilliant, but this uranium isn't exactly the right type of uranium, so you have to enrich the uranium to be able to use it in a reactor.  All this work for this?

Now there is the question of the waste as well as having to store it for many thousands of years.  Reprocessing the waste is also an option, but many countries can't do this as due to some issue with countries signing anti nuclear weapons treaties.

Also, don't forget that there is only a finite amount of uranium available in the world, so nuclear power just like coal power inevitably will come to an end, even if in 50 or 100 years.  This is why humankind should look at RENEWABLE energy sources (P.S. Trees are a renewable energy source since you can grow another tree in a relatively short time (i.e. 30 years) compared to coal which was formed over thousands or millions of years.

Oh, last point - instead of needing more and more energy, the human race should be looking at reducing the demand for energy as a whole, be it for electricity or for fuel.  This would solve a lot of problems.

Addition:

Sorry - forgot to mention that when uranium is enriched, electricity is used, now the question is where does this come from?  Most likely from coal or nuclear powered plants anyway.

Unfortunately there is no perfect solution to generating electricity - even hydro causes problems where dams are built and plant matter collects in the dam and releases methane as it breaks down, which is also a problem for global warming.

Hopefully some clever soul out there will come up with a new idea that is perfect :-)

Answer 5

Nuclear power accidents both real and imagined have been sensationalized for the past three decades (well, that's as far as my memory goes anyway), but it is easy to sensationalize since there is cause.

Breeder reactors carry a lot of inherent dangers with them.  Granted they can be made ever safer as we find better ways of building things.  But it's not sensational enough to sell papers, therefore ... the old sensational stories, or the new stories about poorly operated facilities rule and reign.

Forgive me Rachel, but your last statement deserves comment, money must be a major contributory factor in the discussion since it's integral to society's operation.  If society didn't turn on the flow of currency, then it wouldn't need to be part of the discussion.  However, economical solutions do not have to be un-safe or ecologically destructive solutions.

Answer 6

Whatever, just read this...

Some quotes on the negative side:

"Around 12 tonnes of high-level waste is produced per year per nuclear reactor."

"Possible accidents at nuclear power plants pose a risk of severe environmental contamination. The Chernobyl accident at an RBMK reactor released large amounts of radioactive contamination, killing many and rendering an area of land unusable to humans for the next few centuries."

At least wind power (just an example, there are other alternative energy sources such as solar power, etc.) won't kill tons of people and render land unusable for centuries...

P.S. I love rachel's answer. :)

Answer 7

Chernobyl is a reasonable explanation for the why nots along with each site being an excellent target for any terrorists. The waste is another issue that needs to be seriously considered. There is also the possibilty of leaks, then theres the added question about the amount of fish with cancerous growths and radioactive sheep in Scotland. There is an entire stretch of beautiful beach off of the north east coast of Scotland that is closed off and has been for many years as a result of the extant nuclear power station. The research on human fertility around Sellarfield is another factor to consider.In my opinion solar, wind and hydro power would be a more ethical, considerate and sensible option, its a sad shame that money always seems to be the deciding factor.  

Answer 8

In some places, like France, it has been the preferred alternative to carbon. The problem is that they are very expensive to build and there is the obvious risk. My question, why won't the nuclear advocates commit the same level of funding to wind and solar projects? The real politics here is the coal industry lobbies intensively.  

Answer 9

The real question here is why we build nuclear power stations at all. Enough solar energy hits the planet in one hour top power it for a whole year! Also consider that over its lifetime a single gram of silicon can produce 3,300 kWh of electricity without releasing life threatening toxic and radioactive substances. A single gram of uranium can produce 3,800 kWh of electricity.  However, a uranium atom can only be fissioned once, whereas a silicon solar cell can absorb photons repeatedly to generate electricity. Gram for gram, silicon and uranium produce comparable amounts of electricity.

So what else comes out of the nuclear process, weapons of mass destruction! How many people can be killed by solar panels, exactly?

Don’t be brainwashed in believing that nuclear energy is clean and the only way forward. By accepting it you also accepting that war and nuclear weapons are as acceptable as teaching maths at school.

Go solar and do your bit to save the planet.

Answer 10

There IS nuclear waste that is extremely toxic for years.  Where do you suggest we put it?

Answer 11

Fear.

The nuclear plant near my city was shut down soon after the near accident at 3 mile island.

People are very concerned about the safety of storing the spent fuel. At this point the fuel will need to be stored forever, we have no way of cleaning and reusing it or making it safe. There are many people looking for ways to do those things.