Why don't we go to nuclear power? It's clean and cheap.?

Question

(Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose it.)

We have the technology to power cars and everything els under the sun. Why not just use it? Why spend decades trying to find a clean energy source when we already have it.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Answer 1

nuclear power is not much practical to use  as a primary alternative energy sources although it is used by few developed countries but it is more risky because its  wastes contain radioactive materials that can threat our health and as you said that we have the technology to power cars under the sun but only a few can afford it ,it is to much expensive so as of now researchers still searching  an alternative source of energy in a clean and affordable....

Answer 2

Nuclear has many problems, one of which is water.  Nuclear plants need billions of gallons of water to cool them.  

"Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.    Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer."

"An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines."

Nuclear Power is hydro power"  by Lou at

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2...

“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

"David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me."

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/...

Link to "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"

Nuclear plants are expensive and time consuming to build.

And when they reach the end of their useful life, they are expensive to dismantle.  Like $500 million each.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."

They don't make us energy independent.  

"The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."

"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free."

"So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia."

"I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." "

from:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

"The U.S. faces stiff global competition for nuclear fuel. We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years."

The waste is expensive and potentially dangerous to transport to Yucca Mt. in Nevada from all over the country

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."

    That's just one state.

Think they're safe?

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

There's no accountability on safety.

"The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

Nuclear gets more subsidies than solar or wind.

"Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources. For example, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a loan guarantee program for nuclear plant developers, risk insurance that protects corporate investors against costs associated with delays in licensing, and federal tax credits."

"California has made a commitment to reducing its energy use by investing much more in energy efficiency than Wisconsin does, and its per capita energy use is about half of Wisconsin's as a result. It has made real commitments to stopping global warming without building more nuclear plants, and is keeping the lights on and industry humming along just fine. Wisconsin would be wise to follow its example."

http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/campaigns/...

And by the way we don't need to wait decades to find a clean  energy source.   We already have them, what we don't have is the political will to use them.

Solar and Wind can supply the bulk of our electricity with current technology, and do it faster than building coal or nuclear plants.

Solar PV is just a few years away from grid parity, which is when it competes head to head with gas and coal.   One company is apparently already there.

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."

from http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

And solar thermal power plants, which harness the heat of the sun to make steam and drive a generator are so low tech, we could have done it 50 years ago, or more.

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

http://www.ausra.com

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

A proposal to convert the U.S. electric grid to 69% solar by 2050.

Here's what's already going on with solar thermal plants.

In recent months, PG&E has signed deals for more than a gigawatt of electricity — enough to light more than 750,000 homes — with solar power plant developers.

"The solar thermal industry is in its infancy but utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) have signed several contracts for solar power plants and negotiations for gigawatts more of solar electricity are ongoing."

from Green Wombat

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

Several related stories at this site.

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"

from the Scientific American article

Answer 3

Patrick Moore supports the use of nuclear power as a way to combat global climate change.

Below is an article he wrote a few years ago, published in the Washington Post.  In it he explains his stand and includes the drawbacks of using nuclear power.  It's a good read.

That said, he is now a paid advisor for the nuclear power industry.

Answer 4

Technology certainly has improved that would make nuclear a viable alternative to meet energy demands. Wind and solar only supply 1% of the US energy needs and demands for energy are expected to rise by 50% in 20 years. Opposition rises from environmental groups because of the risk of an accident with radioactive fallout and also what to do with the waste. But if it understood by the public that the safety designs make such senarios unlikely there would be more widespread acceptance of nuclear reactors. Although initial costs of building a reactor are not cheap. I'm in favor of bringing back the electric car whereas the oil companies would not be. The first reactor should come online in 2015 barring they get approved.

Answer 5

Five simple words that most citizens use when the topic of a new nuclear installation is mentioned:  "Not in my back yard."

Answer 6

Isn't it ironic? The people who are the most passionate about global warming, are also against nuclear energy and a solution.  Meanwhile the people who supposedly are an obstacle to fighting "global warming", Skeptics,  for the most part are pro nuclear energy.  

So who is the obstacle to a "solution"?

Edit: castlehillwizard

It is ironic because there is only three types of base power available, coal, hydro, nuclear.  Environmentalists are against all three.  Solar power is expensive, way more so than nuclear, although in France with it nuclear power, energy is cheap.  Maybe in twenty years the costs of solar will come down.   Wind power goes off line when there is no wind.  You need a back up source for non windy days.  The only alternative left is nuclear.  

If AGW is real, then you have to choose the best of the "bad" (well for environmentalist they are bad) options.  Rejecting all three, means accepting the status quo.  

Politicians know the importance of reliable and cheap energy to sustain the economy.  The increase in standards of living during the 20th century is because of energy.

Answer 7

Wow.

first of all, nuclear testing and nuclear energy are different things. what greenpeace was protesting was the American government trying to test their weapons on Canadian soil. we all know the devastating environmental effects of a nuclear weapon. the nuclear fall out would totally destroy the surrounding environment. it is one thing to support nuclear energy and it is another to support nuclear testing.

nuclear energy is not a clean source of energy. c'mon now, haven't you guys heard of "nuclear waste?" in order to extract the energy from the fissile material, nuclear waste is generated. this nuclear waste is highly radioactive is requirse proper means of disposation - which in other words is burying it in the ground forever. hence, nuclear energy is not a clean source of energy for it still has a huge effect on the environment. you are essentially burying highly toxic and radioactive material, in contrast to emitting it out into the atmosphere. i dont know, both seem pretty dirty to me.

the safety of nuclear reactors is also questionnable. and honestly now, in a world being plagued by problems caused by nuclear weapons and such, do we really need to expand on our nuclear physics? the "discoveries" we are to make by investing into nuclear energy is most likely just going to enhance the armaments and introduce more means to kill people.

Answer 8

No Eric C it isn't ironic it is perfectly logical. The people who are the most passionate about global warming, are also against nuclear energy because it is simply not a solution - see the excellent response above. Meanwhile the people who supposedly are an obstacle to fighting "global warming", Skeptics, for the most part are pro nuclear energy. This is because the same group of people who don't want to change their lifestyles to ensure a better World also don't care about potentially damaging problems from nucelar accidents, nuclear waste and terrorism.

PS. No-one really sees skeptics as an obstacle to fighting global warming - that would be like saying that scorpions were an obstacle to the invasion of Iraq. Painful at the micro level if you are stung by one but ultimately no match for the army in pursuit of their goals!

Answer 9

Nuclear energy is the most reasonable and appropriate alternative to conventional sources in the United States.  Most of France runs on Nuclear Energy and tremendous safety advances have been made over the years.

The opposition stems from a general public fear and lack of understanding about nuclear energy plus fear that terrorists will target such facilities as a target of interest.

Answer 10

It is mainly due to several reasons I believe.

1) People are generally afraid of what they do not understand.

2) The word (nuclear) alone strikes fear in peoples minds.

3) Like most things, most people have the NIMBY mentality(Not In MY Back Yard)!

4) Most people can not differentiate between nuclear power production and nuclear weapons.

5) Many of the people who can tell the difference between power and weapons will point to the two examples of Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster.

This subject has had my interest for many years now.

Prior to the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979 I was totally against nuclear power at a time when most people seemed completely uninterested.

I knew absolutely nothing about how nuclear energy was produced.

When the Three Mile Island incident did occur, I decided to do some research on the subject. My intention at the time was to point out all of the flaws, and actually thought that this was the 'Wake Up Call' that everyone needed.

I was doing this research while the plant was shut down and people were evicted from their homes in the surrounding area of the plant.

As I learned how the process worked I realized that my original fears were completely unjustified.

Just as I was turning from anti to pro-nuclear, the tide was turning again!

Three Mile Island was never a threat to the public.

The amount of radioactive steam which was released, that the public was exposed to, was less than standing next to a brick wall for several hours!

What is interesting to me is that this incident(I refuse to call it a disaster) was all caused by a faulty $3.00 temp/pressure release valve which stuck open!

The operations manager on duty at the time, had all of the data at his disposal, but nothing was making any sense.

He was literally stuck between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place'.

Should he just shut down the reactor, taking it off line and causing millions of households to be without power, or try to make his best guess on which gauges to believe?

This really is not an exaggeration, because if the plant was taken off-line without notice, the rest of the power grid would not be able to cope and there would have been a chain reaction of many more power plants having to be taken off-line.

He did his best with what he had to deal with at the time!

As far as the Chernobyl disaster, that was an accident just waiting to happen.

    * 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...

These figures show that even in a 'Worse case scenario'

as what happened at Chernobyl, as bad as it was, the threat to the public or the environment in general, is minimal!

At the time of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, we were being told that between 800,000 and 2,500,000 people were going to die due to radiation exposure, and that no plant or animal life could live in the surrounding area for thousands of years.

That has now been revised to (get this), 80!

A  BBC documentary several years ago went to the site and found trees growing through the cracks in the surrounding concrete, and squirrels and birds that are actually living inside the building now with no apparent ill effects or abnormalities!

Even after I became 'pro-nuclear', I still was concerned about the disposal of the waste.

This issue has now been taken care of by encapsulation in glass!

This is 'low level' nuclear waste anyway, otherwise it would still be being used to produce power.

I personally feel that I would like to see that 'low level waste' be used to it's full potential however.

As this is still generating some heat for many years to come, it would only make sense to treat it as a source of fuel.

I would be extremely pleased if I could take some of this so-called waste, and place it on my property to help cut my heating costs!

Answer 11

It's neither cheap or safe. The Sun is the source of ALL  the energy on Earth.  Even the uranium used , comes from stars.  We need to get our energy directly from the source. Solar power is CHEAP  and  SAFE!

Answer 12

Wow, what a misstatement!   Nuclear is VERY expensive if the govt. (you and me) didn't foot so much of the bill.   Only the production of the power is clean.   Every other fascet of getting the supplies for and disposal of nuclear fuel is just as dirty as coal.