Why is the developed world turning away from Nuclear Energy?

[busydude]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/09/fukushima-reactors-nuclear-free-japan

We all know Germany has already started phasing out its reactors in the wake of earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Now Japan is planning to do the same.

On the other hand, China and India are building reactors like crazy.

I just don't understand the logic behind this at all. Shall we all move back into caves and open spaces as earthquakes cause our buildings to collapse? No, we learn from our mistakes and make sure we limit our causalities to a minimum, and how many people died after being exposed to the radiation.. compared to the lives lost during that natural catastrophe?

 

[Veliko]

Seems to be a lot of scaremongering amongst it all. Green energy and all that is fine but diversity is important.

 

[bfdd]

Because they're fucking retarded retards. Hopefully Americans can turn their mindset around. We need more nuke facilities powering our states.

 

[OutHouse]

nuclear energy is not green energy thats why.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

people can understand burning stuff to make heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity

they dont understand radiation, and they dont understand nuclear reactions (to make heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity).

the unknown is scary.

 

[destrekor]

This was from a Letters to the Editor / Page of Opinions piece in our local newspaper (Toledo Blade) a few days ago.

Nuclear power not the answer

Nuclear power is guaranteed to have accidents, and some of those accidents will end up with terrible results ("Davis-Besse's cracks," editorial, March 1).

Safety procedures in nuclear plants will only work if we have perfect people to follow those procedures. Few perfect people work in any plant, nuclear or otherwise.

Waste from the nuclear plants has no good place to be stored. We know how to generate energy with wind and solar power. If a problem arises with either of these energy sources, the result will not wipe out a community.

We should build more solar plants and wind turbines and learn how to extract energy from tides. We do not need any more Davis-Besse fiascos.

This is the type of opinion the majority of retards have these days. Everybody is afraid, and nobody wants to accept that we MUST take on certain risks if we are to better our civilization globally (and at the national/regional level).

He [author] is correct in that we need to build up renewable energy projects and try and get as much of our requirements as possible from said energy sources, but current technology/[in]efficiency/costs to produce & maintain, make it absolutely necessary to supplement with more reliable energy, clean if at all possible.

Something we should seriously consider in the future, imho: build up nuclear waste stockpiles, then put them on a rocket, and send on a collision course with a planet we cannot possibly care about, or even the sun. Mercury or Venus would prove to be terrific dumping grounds for our waste. And I am being 100% serious.
Might need to wait until we can create some space-elevator style system where errant rocket engines won't lead to dumping all that waste on some unsuspecting country or into our oceans, and then load a one-use spacecraft in orbit (high orbit) and then send it on its way.
In the meantime, what we currently produce/already store isn't a major issue, and by the time it becomes one, we should be able to achieve off-world dumping of spent fuel. Hell, we could probably just throw garbage on a collective "trash planet".

Yes, eco-cooks would cry foul, but hell... Venus is a toxic mess to begin with, and Mercury is simply a furnace with no/little atmosphere. We can't get into the mindset of trashing planets left and right, but we have highly viable and temporary solutions right in our neighborhood that otherwise have no use and will not impact anything as far as the universe is concerned.

 

[clamum]

Because they're full of fuckin fail.

 

[FoBoT]

build as many nuclear and clean coal electric power plants as is profitable

we need to elect some Ferengi, they'll get it going

build them in my backyard, please

 

[SandEagle]

Because they're fucking retarded retards. Hopefully Americans can turn their mindset around. We need more nuke facilities powering our states.

a retarded retard would actually be smart

 

[Sunburn74]

As oil supplies dry up and the cost of oil rises, you'll see more nuclear power. Money is what makes the world go round and unfortunately right now there is no money in nuclear power. When heating costs exponentially rise, then they'll listen to reason.

 

[leper84]

Because Thorium doesn't make a very big 'boom', so no one wants to develop it.

 

[busydude]

Because Thorium doesn't make a very big 'boom', so no one wants to develop it.

Japan does not even have nuclear weapons.

 

[zokudu]

a retarded retard would actually be smart

A slow slow person is still slow. Retarded retard is not a double negative.

 

[Aikouka]

a retarded retard would actually be smart

Actually, a retarded retard would just be a person that's "slow" compared to the average mentally handicapped person. The term "retard" doesn't cancel itself out like a double negative.

Something we should seriously consider in the future, imho: build up nuclear waste stockpiles, then put them on a rocket, and send on a collision course with a planet we cannot possibly care about, or even the sun. Mercury or Venus would prove to be terrific dumping grounds for our waste.

... and here's the plot of your next SyFy original movie, "Attack of the Killer Radioactive Space Beings from Venus!"

 

[rcpratt]

 

[Timorous]

Because people are scared. Fortunately the UK is building more plants. The message that nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation really needs pushing. Deaths /Twh using nuclear is 0.04 the next best is hydro at 0.1 which is still 2.5x more deadly.

Gen 4 reactors need to have more R&D so we can start building passively safe reactors that can also be used as part of the process to create hydrogen fuel cells. Going forward it is the greenest and safest method to fuel our vehicles and power our homes.

 

[busydude]

Yes, rcpratt.. I am somewhat happy that US is still going on building reactors.

 

[Saint Nick]

FWIW, the nuclear station here in Nebraska is doing very poorly. So poorly that the company who owns the plant needed to hire Excelon to fix the problems. Bunch of "safety culture" issues.

 

[SagaLore]

If we can find alternatives that are safer and much more environmentally friendly, then why not pursue that?

Nuclear reactors are only "clean" until their fuel is spent, then you end up with waste that is many times worse than what other power plants produce.


For any nuclear reactors we do build now, they should be pebble bed reactors. Not sure why we aren't doing that.

 

[OutHouse]

Because people are scared. Fortunately the UK is building more plants. The message that nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation really needs pushing. Deaths /Twh using nuclear is 0.04 the next best is hydro at 0.1 which is still 2.5x more deadly.

Gen 4 reactors need to have more R&D so we can start building passively safe reactors that can also be used as part of the process to create hydrogen fuel cells. Going forward it is the greenest and safest method to fuel our vehicles and power our homes.

i call shens on that.

 

[OutHouse]

As oil supplies dry up and the cost of oil rises, you'll see more nuclear power. Money is what makes the world go round and unfortunately right now there is no money in nuclear power. When heating costs exponentially rise, then they'll listen to reason.

what does oil have to do with making electricity? I dont power my home by a gas generator it comes from a coal power plant 5 miles from me.

 

[Timorous]

If we can find alternatives that are safer and much more environmentally friendly, then why not pursue that?

Nuclear reactors are only "clean" until their fuel is spent, then you end up with waste that is many times worse than what other power plants produce.


For any nuclear reactors we do build now, they should be pebble bed reactors. Not sure why we aren't doing that.

Fast breeders to reuse the spent fuel rods reduces waste a lot. All nuclear waste produced in the USA currently fills one and a half olympic swimming pools so the issue is blown out pf proportion. In my view storing the waste deep underground is better than dumping it into the atmosphere. Coal plants produce more radiation in normal operation than nuclear plants and the ash pits are both huge and insanely toxic.

 

[leper84]

Japan does not even have nuclear weapons.

...and the basis of all their nuclear technology came from the US and UK, not to mention research partnerships they've entered into with us on the subject...

 

[Timorous]

i call shens on that.

When I get home I will find the source.

 

[bruceb]

The only real issue is with the disposal of the used fuel rods. As far as safety is concerned, at least for plants in the US they seem to be pretty safe. We did have that issue with 3 Mile Island, but even that was very minor, compared to the graphite type reactor used in Chernobyl. And the incident in Japan might have been minimized or avoided if the backup generators and electrical wiring was not in an area that might (and in this case did) flood.