A coal burning power plant releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than any nuclear power plant releases in normal operation, and the nuclear plant doesn't release it into the atmosphere. However, recycling nuclear materials requires a series of power plants, each designed for a different type of fuel. Also, each refinement stage produces its own hazardous waste, which still requires disposal. Disposing of solid spent fuel rods poses less of a problem than disposing of larger volumes of refinement byproducts that add other toxic chemicals in liguid, solid and gaseous states. A plutonium reactor is a different design than one built to use enriched uranium fuel rods. Both utilize a controlled nuclear reaction to generate steam which is in turn used to genertate electricity. But the neutron emisiionrates and velocities differ, requiring different containment and moderator design, and the quantities and spacing of the fuel rods is different too.
Now think of the costs involved for all those nuclear facilities Cogito has just mentioned ... I mean, here in Australia, the government is hesitant to build desalination plants when we desperately need them - because of the costs. I'd be amazed if we went nuclear, particularly under our new Prime Minister.
Come now, why would the US government do anything so sensible? Besides that, they're already a trillion dollars in debt, they can't afford nuclear energy at the moment. When the American economy FINALLY collapses (which, I think it will, eventually) I hope to be long out of Australia and in Europe somewhere. All this talk translates into the bottom line of: It's too expensive.
Hardly. All the fuel rods have to do is cool down in water for 7 years and then be reused. It's a really simple process. (I've talked with somebody in the field who works for a power plant)
Frost if the US economy collapses there will be no place to hide. The Great Depression was bad enough imagine what will happen now in the era of globalization?
If the US economy collapsed (not just a recession but a true collapse) the rest of the world would join it in, depending on the country, 1 week to 2 months. The US is the major buyer of practically everything, and supplies goods, resources, and materials all over the world. Plus its businesses are partners, co-owners, out-right owners, suppliers, buyers, or subsidiaries of every large company in the world. So if the US collapsed China would follow in about a month or less, and after that even the most anti-American country that stops all American trade at the border will start falling. Bye bye world stability. As for nuclear power we need it. Large parts of Europe already use it safely. Japan runs on nuclear power. The only countries moving away from nuclear power is the US and Canada. Every other country wants it or simply doesn't have the technology, or money. And it is one of the safest types of efficiently produced power sources in the world. Not counting Chernobyl which was a disaster due to extreme stupidity, only 3 or 4 people have died in the production of nuclear power. What other type of mass produced energy can say the same?
You know your stuff Domoviye. Not to be arrogant, but it is true how the world (maybe not all of it) would collapse without the support of the American government. Also, you're right about how so few have died from nuclear power. I'll say it once, I'll say it twice, it's the way to go.
Pajamas Media: Treat Breast Cancer? Not in My Backyard Heres an interesting and informative article about the uses of nuclear power plants, and why they are a good thing for women, and many other people.
