Why don't we build new nuclear power plants?

Question

It's proven technology to generate power for us that produces no carbon dioxide, sulfur emmisions, lead, mercury, etc. The new designs by GE and the french are very reliable and safe. People just remember chernobyl and 3 mile island. I am not saying we should not develop geothermal, solar, wind, and wave, but nuclear power generation is proven. Some people argue that getting rid of the waste is a problem but there are plenty of plans for storing it and the yucca mountain facility is going to be opening soon.

Answer 1

errrr....

we are.

plans in u.s. and u.k. to do just that, very soon.

i don't disapprove of the technology per se, but the way its been pushed through has been a bit dodgy, and they are going to be expensive and inflexible power sources. it will take money and attention away from renewables such as  solar and geothermal.

Answer 2

because it takes more energy than it makes and is therefore pointless plus it costs millions and the gov will never pay that unless they really have to.

It also leaves a lot nuclear waste after, they can also be very dangerous.

Answer 3

DUH! they take millions of years for the leftover waste they cause to break down again. Do we really need to do that?

Answer 4

I agree that nuclear power is the way to go for mass energy production.  However, 'environmentalists' would rather we burn coal and strip-mine the landscape to generate electricity than use nuclear.  They make a lot of noise and Congress listens.

I am also a big fan of Bush's progress on hydrogen and geothermal energy.  Geothermal is practically unlimited.  He has been fighting 'environmentalists' who prefer we burn coal over harnessing the Earth's abundant heat.

Answer 5

There is a huge under ground salt mine that was built for that purpose in New Mexico.

Answer 6

Nothing wrong nuclear power.

Answer 7

Because we let a few loud mouth idiots who have too much time on their hands, who have never worked a real job in their life, run their mouths and cost each and everyone of us, far more than it should.   They need to be loaded up, and shipped to the desert, where they can live in a dark cave, and whip their butts with sand.

Answer 8

Nobody wants it in their backyard.

Answer 9

Because the "environmentalists" want to slowly drag us back to the stone age.  The biggest problem with Nuclear Power plants is having to find a way to store the spent fuel and contaminated wastes.

Answer 10

Please make part of the picture the people that have to mine it, like most dirty work, it's very hard not to have some of the workers become contaminated over time, these people typically die of cancers so you must consider this type of human view to using nuclear power.

The main difficulty is the expense of dealing with the waste products, not in the production of steam to drive a generator. This is mainly due to the waste being a 10,000 year problem.

Too many of the tanks at Hanford have become corroded and leaked, they "caught" the runoff but it eventually gets into the groundwater, so, the Columbia River has nuclear pollutants downstream of Hanford from these leaky tanks and a bedrock that's more porous than  expected over just 60 years. Using glass entombment is promising but the bugs haven't been worked out yet, best so far however, but not cheap. Yucca Flats has been a candidate, but if you live near it, it's a boondoggle for big companies and more land you can't visit.

I'd recommend putting 1,000 square feet of solar panels on your roof, that's about 15Kw per hour full sun, most houses use 30-75 Kw-hours a day and the rest spins the dial to pay the bills. This costs about $40,000us for 25-year, 60-knot wind load panels installed and pays off in a couple of weeks here in Phoenix (not really, but only a couple of years, for Seattle it was about 7 years to pay for itself).

This is for urban housing on the grid, if you need batteries that adds more cost but also way more maintenance, needed for rural areas and then worth it.

With millions of homes now small generation stations, the grid can handle the daily surge without adding capacity to the lines, if there's a brownout or blackout, the solar homes and businesses have their basic needs met. If a terrorist wants to blow a few towers and cause a blackout it's less effective as a strategy with millions of solar homes and businesses around.

However, this takes a huge big chunk 'o cash out of the power companies' pockets and into yours so requires legislation for two-way metering and the rules of who pays what when to who so it can work, many states now support this.

Nothing wrong with nuclear power, it's just a dicey way to make steam, and that's all it's doing is producing superheated steam (~800-degF), I thought you could do that by painting the Los Angeles Aquaduct black, it goes through a couple hundred miles of desert, shouldn't be a problem to power LA, then condense the water to use at the end (only it probably wouldn't get enough pressure to drive turbines but it's a fun thought).

No coal, no oil, no uranium, just sunlight ... panels are around 15-watts/sq.ft. now, not bad at all if you can find some 'cause the rest of the world is buying them like pancakes, especially Asia and Europe.

Answer 11

I agree we need more nuclear power plants, the nuclear power industry in the U.S. is also the only power production that has not recorded a fatality in its history so it is very safe.

Answer 12

I dk, i feel kinda iffy about nuclear power plants

Answer 13

Costs.   Nuke plants need to be near large bodies of water.   Any land near large bodies of water cost alot.    Any people living near that water don't want to see a nuke plant anywhere near them and see their home values drop since they paid alot for them.    A nuke reactor built well without using the lowest bidder that would probably cut as many corners as they could would cost alot- billions.    Running the facility is actually pretty cheap.   Dismanteling it at the end of its lifespan would cost more than all the power it produced during its usefull lifespan.   Where's all this extra money going to come from?   My taxes.   No thanks, conservation is much cheaper.