Won't we be better off if we shut down old-style coal plants and replace them with new nuclear powered plants?

Question

The U.S. gets 50% of its electricity from coal.

India gets 70% of its electricity from coal.

China gets 80% of its electricity from coal.

Conversely, France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear.

We could show China the way by shutting down our polluting coal-fired plants as soon as we have built the next generation nuclear plants to take their place.

We need to set a good example for India and China.

China is activating at least one new coal-fired plant every week!

They want to build 55 coal-fired plants per year for at least 5 years in a row.

We should also be building high-speed maglev rail networks all over the country in order to provide a viable alternative to air and highway travel.

With the latest in pre-stressed concrete structural components, we can build an elevated maglev rail system that will avoid the dangers and traffic disruptions associated with rail crossings of surface streets.

Texas and Wyoming are the worst offenders in coal emissions!

Answer 1

I'm thinking that nuclear plant would have a big bullseye on it.  I wouldn't want to live near it.

Answer 2

First, I wouldn't be pointing my fingers on any state for coal emmission.   California may look good on coal emmision because we have a ban on new coal plants.  The problem is that we just move the coal plants to another state.  We use the electricity from these coal plants, but the other states get the blame.  As fo the Mag lev, it would generate more CO2 that it's worth, if no one uses it.  I wouldn't mind if we tax air travel to encourage a reasonable alternative, but that would be an unpopular thought.  As for Nuclear power, I wouldn't want India to have more Nuclear plants.  They still refuse to sign the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty.  The Question is where would we put all the radioactive materials from these plants.  I prefer to add more wind Turbine.

Answer 3

to solve our troubles we neat to drill in Alaska,we have plenty of oil we Ned to drill  -- live the coll for emergence--

Answer 4

How can you be better off? It will cost a lot to dismantle functional power stations. Building Nuclear to replace them will cost more. Your electricity bill will go through the roof or did you think someone else will pay. Tell you what you pay my share and I"LL GO ALONG>

Answer 5

Nuclear power plants cost a fortune, as compared to coal ones. Further, there can be disasters similar to Chernobyl if lax safety and security measures are followed.

France has a smaller area as compared to the US, China and India and hence, requires much fewer nuclear power plants.

Answer 6

And who is going to stand watch over the radioactive waste products for the next 90 million years? You?

Nuclear energy will be irresponsible until we know how to clean it up so that it's environmentally safe for this planet even after the human race is gone.

Answer 7

you could replace the existing coal powered plant's with nuclear ones but how many actual people will want a nuclear power plant within 200-300 km of where they live although nuclear power is cleaner in terms of greenhouse effect it leaves waste which needs to be stored in properly built and maintained structures to keep the left over waist away from people and also underground watercourses and anything else that it could have a potentially hazardous effect on whereas coal does not leave waste that is directly hazardous to everything that comes in contact with it although you may say that it has a dangerous effect on the atmosphere there are alternatives to the current coal powered plants

there are strong research and development programs into clean coal technology or zero emmission coal power plants.

there are also the issues that neither nuclear or coal are sustainable in the long term neither of these are renewable sources of fuel perhaps if the money that is spent on research and development into nuclear power was put into developing renewable forms of power generation such as solar panels and wind turbines then we wouldn't have to worry about  pollution of any sort

Answer 8

Nah.

Answer 9

Depends on the way you look at it. Nuclear power plants are day to day more 'healthy' than coal which releases Co2. But the major problem is what to do with the toxic wastes from the nuclear power plants. Where would they put it? You can't put it in the ocean due to ocean currents, not out to space as too expensive/how would you get it there? And you can't bury it as it has alot of harmful problems such as turning the water table acidic and ruining biodivirsity.

So, in the long term, no, nuclear power is not the answer...

And don't even get started on the risk of another Chernobyl accident occuring! :)

Answer 10

I think we need new technology . All this stuff is all from my grandfathers generation and I'm a grandfather myself .

Technology that's like on this site   www.first-molecule.com

Answer 11

Yes, it would be environmentally useful to replace coal fired plants with nuclear plants. I will not comment on the remaining question and observations.

Answer 12

~50% of the electricity here is produced by nuclear and it was announced within the last year that we need between 2 and 8 new reactors.

Yes there are problems associated with nuclear just as there are with coal or oil.  Though coal makes 800X the volume of waste you can use coal slag for road fill, can't do that with nuclear fuel waste.

The biggest hurdle to acceptance is not the old "we're all going to glow in the dark" or NIMBY, it's the cost.  Nuke plants are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, even though fuel wise they are much cleaner and cheaper to run.

It is VERY difficult to get the amount of money necessary when, for the same cost, you can build 10X as many coal plants as nuke plants.  They are tearing down coal plants here or converting them to natural gas.

Answer 13

You might be interested in the newish field of clean burn coal technology. There are coal fired stations being converted to this technology at present.(short term trial). When proved this is likely to be retrofitted to existing coal powered power stations and incorporated in newly built ones.

http://www.csenergy.com.au/research_and_...

As simply as I can put it. the co2 produced during the burning of coal (c14) is extracted liquefied then pumped back underground. Basically putting the carbon back where it came from.

There is sufficient coal reserves in the world to supply our power needs for thousands of years, even with the lower efficiency that clean burn technology requires.

Just another note. Both coal and uranium are finite resources while both will solve the power needs for now another  solution will eventually be needed. Neither can be replenished at the rate that we are using them. Clean coal technology can produce virtually no co2 emissions , like nuclear power. The bigger advantage is that the waste does not stay as toxic as long.

Electric trains are considered to produce co2 base on the fact that they draw power from the grid. Of course if there where no co2 producing power plants in the grid then electric trains could not be considered co2 producers. Either way I agree that electric train transport is far cleaner than internal combustion and should be developed world wide.

Answer 14

You are right, we should be getting maybe half of our energy from nuclear, these next generation nuclear power plants cut down on spent fuel and radioactive waste by 40%.  Then we should start utilizing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric.  Germany is close to getting 1/3 of there power from solar, but in the U.S. our solar is a joke.  If the next president sees things this way we should follow, and set a good example.  I just hope we put in the kind of attention that we give to space, and the military.