Why is the U.S. afraid of nuclear power?

[Wildtree]

Nuclear weapons shoud be destroyed and forbidden for ever!

You don't know the differences of nuclear weapons, and nuclear power plants, do you?

[bals]

Also it's not just the US anymore.
Japan is shutting down all it's nuclear reactors and they don't have any place to store the spent fuel rods they already have

[Jaxi]

Them US storage facilities.... They are iron clad safe..... Never in a million years, anything can happen with that nuclear waste...
How would one come to such conclusion?

OOOPS?

More OOOPS..

That facility is not licensed for nuclear power plant disposal, but for disposal of R&D of nuclear weapons. Next time you google articles, make sure it is relevant to the topic at hand.

But since I work in this field, I'll bite.

I was actually in Phoenix when the former happened. This site is licensed for transuranic waste (heavier than uranium). These products are alpha emitters, which means they emit helium nuclei. Alpha particles only travel about an inch in air, and are stopped by skin, so they aren't that dangerous, unless you inhale them. The real problem with alpha emitters is they have a nasty habit of creating hydrogen gas. Needless to say, we try to keep them away from water for that reason. So the WIPP plant was commissioned by the US government for US government waste only (not nuclear power plants) for the disposal of transuranic waste that was intentionally created for R&D into nuclear weapons.

Anyway, we're currently investigating what happened at WIPP, but right now the supposition is this:

The site was chosen because of the salt and lack of groundwater. When dealing with heavy alpha emitters we isolate them from water, dry them as best as we can, and then store them in caskets with HEPA filters on them that can monitor the buildup of Hydrogen gas, and vent appropriately. We think that while loading a dock (oh I believe they were on 21) a cave in caused one of the containers to get damaged, and hydrogen gas built up. We also believe there was a generator located near the cave in that provided a spark for an explosion. The vent into the actual shaft is designed to detect and seal off should any radioactive leak occur, but because it is a salt mine we think that the salt crystallized and inhibited the ability of the vent to fully shut. Well the alarms DID go off, but because of the tendency for naturally occurring radon gas to set off the alarms, they were ignored. DoE employees, what can I say? What all of this effectively did was allow radioactive particles to be blown out of the containment.

A couple of notes:
-This was a government facility for government waste. Nothing there was produced in a nuclear generating station.
Nothing.
-The waste they deal with at WIPP was intentionally produced. We don't work with it at nuclear generating stations.

Nuclear weapons shoud be destroyed and forbidden for ever!

Nuclear Power plants are not nuclear weapons.

[muto]

....no?

If C02 were so 'simply' reversed, don't you think we would have done that already? Planting trees doesn't just 'fix' it. And yet, C02 emissions is one of the most hotly debated topics in environmentalism. It is far from simple. Or easy.

And nuclear waste causes 0 environmental impact under normal, because it is stored safely. Granted, we have to figure out what to do, and where to put it eventually. But it still doesn't cause consistent and pervasive problems. However I do agree that it does cost a great deal to store it. Decommissioning a nuclear plant is particularly expensive, as Vermont just found out.

Yes actually it does, since deforestation contributes to about 16% of global CO2 emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...obal.html#four

And also do you think that U-235 will be safe for the next 700+ million years?, which is what its half life is.

[dehotz]

What alternatives, exactly?

Wind - Generates very little actual power
Hydro - Generates okay power, but environmentally and permanently destructive
Solar - Getting better, and cheaper, still doesn't generate a lot but may, but also environmentally destructive
Coal - Limited supply (Less than 100 years) and polluting
Natural Gas - Limited supply, and getting more expensive

How is solar power environmentally destructive?

[Lothaeryn]

Two to Three reasons:

1.) Three Mile Island, where a nuclear meltdown nearly blew up a town and caused a radioactive catastrophe in the United States.

2.) As an extension to #1, Americans are stupid, and don't trust themselves enough with Nuclear power for it to be a viable and safe form of energy (and thank god that they don't, cause I wouldn't either).

3.) Oil and Coal companies, like Bergatu said, have money, and money talks and says Nuclear isn't as viable as fossil fuels as an energy source.

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty much because the word "Nuclear" has a negative connotation and many people are uneducated about nuclear power. They hear the word "nuclear" and pop a red flag.

You're exposed to more cosmic radiation every year than living next to a power plant.

And? Our Species has evolved to tolerate that radiation over time, and can handle it in adjusted quantities that happen naturally.

The last time I checked I still get cancer from exposure to gamma radiation leaks. And I can almost guarantee a leak would happen due to negligence in the US.

[Masark]

Yes actually it does, since deforestation contributes to about 16% of global CO2 emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...obal.html#four

And also do you think that U-235 will be safe for the next 700+ million years?, which is what its half life is.

1. Yippie ki yay. So planting more trees takes care of 16%. How about the other 84%?

2. We're not taking about U-235. U-235 is fuel, not waste. Furthermore, the longer the half life, the less a problem it is, as it gives off much less radiation. Uranium is, for most intents and purposes, lead. It's much more of a problem as a toxic heavy metal than it is as a radioisotope as it's pretty weakly radioactive and it decays via alpha particle emissions, which you could basically block off by covering it with kleenex.

How is solar power environmentally destructive?

Rare earth mining/refining, silicon refining, etc. are needed for most types of solar panels and are somewhat messy.

[Tierbook]

Don't know about the rest of the nation but about half of South Carolina is nuclear powered.... also Germany is shutting down all of its nuclear power plants last i heard

- - - Updated - - -

Two to Three reasons:

1.) Three Mile Island, where a nuclear meltdown nearly blew up a town and caused a radioactive catastrophe in the United States.

2.) As an extension to #1, Americans are stupid, and don't trust themselves enough with Nuclear power for it to be a viable and safe form of energy (and thank god that they don't, cause I wouldn't either).

3.) Oil and Coal companies, like Bergatu said, have money, and money talks and says Nuclear isn't as viable as fossil fuels as an energy source.

- - - Updated - - -



And? Our Species has evolved to tolerate that radiation over time, and can handle it in adjusted quantities that happen naturally.

The last time I checked I still get cancer from exposure to gamma radiation leaks. And I can almost guarantee a leak would happen due to negligence in the US.

A good chunk of the nations that have nuclear power plants have had accidents before, France had an explosion at one of theirs just a few years ago

[Osmeric]

1.) Three Mile Island, where a nuclear meltdown nearly blew up a town and caused a radioactive catastrophe in the United States.

This is a grossly inaccurate characterization of what happened at TMI. There is no way, even in theory, it could have "blown up a town".

[Tierbook]

This is a grossly inaccurate characterization of what happened at TMI. There is no way, even in theory, it could have "blown up a town".

Ya Three Mile wasn't even remotely close to a Chernobyl event