Unfourtunately, nuclear power is associated with some vague cataclysimc, chenobyl on crack, end of world scenario. THe mushmroom cloud is assocaited with nuclear power plants. This regretable phantasm agitates globabl warming and decreases energy independence.
Three mile Island and Chernobyl are the staid examples invoked by opponents. However, anything remotley close to a Chernobyl style power plant will never be built in the United States. Furthermore, three mile island is currently operating, barely anything happened. New techonology, specifically pebble based technology functionally eliminates the possibility of meltdown. In modern plants it takes 5 seconds to stop the process.
Recent congresional initiatives are causing a boom in the nuclear industry. Incentives for nuclear power plants include further subsidies on power, loans, and insurance agaisnt regulatory delay. The most recent nuclear plant built in the United States took 23 years to complete, that's absurd. The problem is thus a financing issue. How many investorys are willing to lock up financing for 23 years? Crazy ones! Think about the value of five dollars today and the value of that dollar back in 1984. The steep discount on the value of the investment makes it largely irrational. Decreasing the bueracratic hassles is key.
Nuclear plants dont emit carbon! The end all and be all of the environmental movement is reducing carbon footprints. Everyone is willing to take ridiculous measures to do so (thats a volume of entries unto itself). So go nuclear and reduce your Carbon footprint!
Hooray mutants!
Where do you put the waste? Remember when environmentalists protested Yucca Mountain all the time? That was sooo 2001.
Good Point
I dont think the solution is permanent storage by any means. The French, for example, keep waste in temporary medium terms tanks. They are expending an incredible amount of effort on new initiatives to reprocess the waste. The idea is that the probability is high that at some point in the next 100 years or so, reprocessing procedures will lead to viable alternative. The concerns over current reprocessing procedures arise because the by product is used in nuclear weapons. Thus issues of nuclear proliferation are invoked. If it doesn't work out then we can store it underground facilities.
Threat of nuclear
Threat of nuclear proliferation.
Environmentally and politically hazardous nuclear waste facility.
~100 years for a *potential* alternative to storage.
I don't see a solution as much as I see other problems.
These are pretty serious issues before anyone even mentions the meltdown risk.
Post new comment