Does America Need More Nuclear Power?

France produces over 80% or their electricity needs from nuclear power. They reprocess their spent fuel rods to minimize waste that must be stored for centuries. Doesn't seem to be a big problem over there. I can't imagne that the French are any smarter than we are. If it works there, it should work here. If you are opposed to nuclear, coal, gas, and wind power then stop using electricity or a least spend $25,000 to put solar panels on the roof of your home. A lot of posters seem to against everything, yet offer no solutions to this or any other problem.

Bob of TX 1:56PM August 19, 2010

I would hope the public has gotten over it's irrational fear, but as the post from Bozena G. of NY shows us, many people are clinging to their irrational fear like a religion. I would hope a science teacher would have better deductive skills and a more open mind. Maybe you have encountered the formula E=MC^2, the fossil fuel used to produce nuclear power is about the same or less per Mwe for solar and wind and could be reduced even further if more clean nuclear was being produced. I know nukes; I have 30 years experience working with nuclear power. It is the safest, cleanest, most reliable way to produce electricity today and if want prosperity we need to build more nuclear power plants now!

I would urge Bozena G. of NY to get some more education on nuclear power before making such embarrassing statements. Here are some links:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/students/Track_teachers.html

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html

http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/

Michael Mann of NY 5:07PM August 17, 2010

Michael Mann of New York refers to an "irrational fear of all things nuclear". Nuclear advocates are often tricked into imputing this irrational fear to the public. However, in recent years polls seldom show less than absolute majorities in favour. Perhaps environmentalists have the fear? Not when it's their personal choice, for getting about the Arctic ocean, between diesel icebreakers and nuclear ones. They ought to insist on wind-powered icebreakers, but they don't. They go nuclear.

So who really fears it? Could it be government, and other natural gas interests? Anyone who makes money on methane, but doesn't have to live on the offshore oil rigs, in the coal mines, or next to the pipelines when the methane blows? Natural gas, aka explosive, radioactive methane, is, let us not forget, 20 times more costly than uranium. And one man's cost is another publically employed man's royalties. Perhaps that other man is an official who can footdrag on nuclear plant permitting. That wouldn't happen, would it?

G.R.L. Cowan 4:29PM August 17, 2010

PROS

1. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.

2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem.

3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin)

4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.

5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors, Much higher than solar or wind

6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.

7. Creates high paying, skilled jobs.

8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.

9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

10. Fantastic safety record.

11, Does not require back-up and storage facilities like solar and wind.

12. More economical than solar per Mw produced.

13. Much smaller footprint, takes up less land than Solar or wind.

14. May be located almost anywhere on earth.

15. Can be made to desalinate water.

16. Generation IV reactors can use "high level waste" as fuel

CONS

1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.

2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.

3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.

4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available. (we should build one)

5. High cost of personnel.(high paying jobs in my community)

6. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism. (minimal risk, easier to refine ore)

I have 30 years experience as an Instrument and Control Technician, I calibrate and maintain the instrumentation and control systems used to safely operate a nuclear power plant.

Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.

I have confidence that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource or at least smart enough to handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?

Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed, most of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

I believe the choice is clear. Yes, we need to start building new nuclear power plants now for a brighter, cleaner, future!

MIchael Mann of NY 5:11AM August 17, 2010