Why is nuclear energy decreasing?

Answer 1

The nuclear energy industry in the US stopped expanding because of the political turmoil caused by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. We allowed ourselves to be driven by the anti-nuclear factions, even in the face of hard scientific evidence that nuclear power was economically viable, environmentally appropriate, and radiologically safe, when considered in the global context, particularly in comparison with the known consequences of fossil power.

Look at Shoreham. Fully assembled and tested. 851 megawatts electric. Full power operating license. Ready to go. Six billion dollars. All thrown away for a dollar because of politics. Decommissioned and left to rot. And who pays for it? And for the replacement power plants that will ultimately be needed to cover its capacity? Why, the ratepayers, of course.

Now, with the new accident at Fukushima Daiichi, things are going to get worse. Public sentiment is going to be swayed against nuclear, due to misunderstanding and, in some cases, deliberate misinformation. That is unfortunate, because we are at a very sensitive juncture, where the environmental consequences of fossil power need to be abated now, not in the distant future, and nuclear energy is the only viable option in the immediate term, and in the near and mid future.

All of the alternative sources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar are not ready for main stream commercial operation, and neither is nuclear fusion. We need to objectively consider the global issues surrounding nuclear power and take a stand, one that is based on hard scientific fact, not mythology, scare tactics, and politics.

In point of fact, both Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl released substantial amounts of radioactive material (Chernobyl about ten times as great, although the final picture is not complete on Fukushima Daiichi) but, and do not misunderstand this, the dilution effect of the enormous volume of the atmosphere and the ocean strongly mitigates the consequences of both accidents.

I am not trying to minimize these accidents. They are serious, and they need to be studied so that we can learn from them. We just need to put them into global context.

In addition, we are critically hampered by the lack of a long term high level waste facility. We have spent fuel accumulating in our 104 reactors with no place to go, simply because of politics, and misguided information. Yucca Mountain was built specifically for this purpose. We need to start using it. Now. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to proceed with a viable nuclear program, and the global consequences are that we will wind up in the dark ages, so to speak, and - might I add - literally.

And, along with nuclear power, we need to look very carefully at automobiles. The marriage of nuclear power with automobiles running on electricity is a "match made in heaven". It is time to put our collective feet down and force the issue. These gas guzzlers need to go. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. If that means mass transit and/or a change in life style, then so be it - our very existence on Earth depends on it. No exceptions.

Answer 2

Nuclear energy is decreasing due to a combination of factors such as high construction costs, waste disposal challenges, public concerns over safety, competition from renewable energy sources, and regulatory obstacles. These factors have made it increasingly difficult for new nuclear power plants to be built and for existing plants to remain economically viable.

Answer 3

1. a nuclear power plant is expensive to build

2. opposition from coal/oil suppliers

3. opposition from inconscient ecologists and not informed peoples