Would you like a nuclear plant to generate electricity for your city? IF so..?

Question

Aren't you affraid of another Chernobyl Disaster?

Don't you know what a NUCLEAR MELT DOWN IS?

Answer 1

well if we have no choice, why wouldn't we accept it? the only thing i'm concerned of is that the nuclear plant must be constructed in a safe place and meet its safety standards. but for now, it is not yet needed because more and more alternatives are showing up like solar panels and wind mills.

Have a nice day!

Answer 2

To answer your questions:

1) Yes

2) No

3) Yes

But apparently your answer to 3 should be No, because Chernobyl was not a nuclear melt down, it was a fire in the carbon block pile.  This type of reactor has never been used to generate power in the west and no reactors of this type remain in the US.  Thus it would be impossible for a "Chernobyl disaster" to occur in any nuclear power plant here or in Western Europe.  Melt downs, or at least partial melt downs, have occured but they have been confined withing the reactor containment vessel and posed no risk to the wider community.

Answer 3

Why not? if it is used for the proper purpose and causes less harm to the enviroment as well as cheaper electricity

Answer 4

Yep, I know what a meltdown is.  And that's why I don't want a plant near us.  Don't thik we need one.  We have lots of water, lakes and rivers, and water driven turbines. Seems to meet our needs.

Not to mention, there's always the windmills.

Answer 5

Give me a nice coal plant with the pretty black smoke pouring out.    

Water power, coal, natural gas.  Coal can be made clean burning.  

Personally, with the price of gas and electric going up, it may be cheaper to go back to a horse and coal oil lamps.

Answer 6

I live between 2 nuclear plants, 15 miles each.  I have no problem with Nuclear energy.

Anyone that is informed would have no problem.  You should do some research.  -- For example, you mention Chernobyl... do you know why WE never had a Chernobyl?  Because our nuclear plants are designed different than theirs.  Ours have 6-10 foot thick concrete containment buildings with multiple redundant safety systems, they have a metal roof, and no redundant backup systems.  Very different technology.

Our 'worst' disaster amounted to no nuclear material being released.  Nothing.  Not one death, not one issue.

I'm a radiological engineer, who has worked inside a nuclear plant for 20 years.  My job is to know the hazards, and keep people safe.  You get more radiation exposure from smoking a pack of cigarettes, taking a airplane trip, or going to the beach than you do WORKING at a nuclear plant.  You get nothing from living NEAR one.  Also, nuclear plant have the BEST OSHA records of any industry.  -- OSHA = Safety.

Look up some facts.

Answer 7

No, we have enough already.

People think a nuclear meltdown is unlikely to happen because the reactors are supposedly safer now.  I'm sure they've made them safer, but never safe enough for every contingency.

  "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."

sources below:

Nuclear power has many problems, including cost.

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

"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."

" 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."

"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.

"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."      

And it doesn't even free us from dependence on foreign 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."

They conlude;

"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/...

Solar is the way to go for centralized power.  We can power the whole country with solar power plants in the southwest at a reasonable cost to build.  At way less cost in public money than we now use to subsidize the oil industry.

See how, at Scientific America

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

To read about what's already happening in California and the southwest:

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

From the site of on of the solar thermal companies:

"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."

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. 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."

  

  In reality there will most likely be a mix of clean power.  Solar power plants would be the centralized power, and cogeneration, solar panels, wind, hydro etc would be distributed energy, adding to the grid locally.

Answer 8

They are pretty safe.....................and getting safer.................no problem if it is cheaper..........