Nuclear Reactors

• Chernobal was the worst
• Three Mile Island was a problem
• There have been a number of nuclear submarines that have sunk
• And there have been a number of nuclear warheads lost at sea.

• Level 7 Chernobyl Disaster
• Level 6 Kyshtym Disaster
• Level 5 Windscale Fire, Three Mile Island Accident, Goiania Incident
• Level 4 ten incidents in various places

The listed events are all related to power production except the Goinia Incident, which related to abandoned radioactive medical materials. Events relating to warfare, lost warheads, lost submarines, and so on are not on the list. Nor some industrial problems, such as what happened to the Radium Girls.

There are links to Wikipedia articles below.

Advantages:

Far higher fuel energy density (1-10 million times coal/oil/gas)

1 GW-year requires 3.75 million tons of coal but only about 1 tonne of U-235

Nuclear waste is highly toxic but the amount is small so full containment is practical. 1 GW-year from coal produces 8.75 million tons CO2, with little alternative but to dump it in the atmosphere.

Nuclear plants produce no NOx, SOx, CO, HC or smoke. Scrubbers have cleaned up coal plants but they're complex, expensive and consume much power. Fly ash must be stored if it can't be sold (e.g., for concrete).

Nuclear is the only non-fossil dispatchable source that can be significantly grown in the US (hydro is pretty much fully developed). Without nuclear, wind and solar beyond 30% of total generation will require either much more pumped storage (and habitat destruction) or a major battery breakthrough.

Good baseload (24/7) source, vs wind and solar and even hydro (drought years). Reactors usually shut down for refueling only every other year. Can also load-follow (e.g., in France). Only renewable source good for baseload is geothermal, which is limited.

Fast neutron (breeder) reactors mean enough uranium and thorium for many thousands of years, far more than coal (most abundant fossil fuel). No need for imports. Fast reactors also burn long-lived actinides, keeping them out of waste. The important fission products have half lives of <= 30 years, so volume of waste is much smaller and will decay much faster (to the activity of uranium ore in just a few centuries).

Disadvantages:

Very expensive and time-consuming to build, mainly politics and legal challenges and delays. Proliferation of one-off designs that run up costs.

Significant physical and computer security requirements.

Current reactors need active cooling of decay heat for several days after shutdown. Loss of power can cause core melt, H2 generation and serious explosions (Fukushima). Newer designs emphasize passive cooling.

Although major accidents and terrorist attacks are unlikely consequences could be severe, outstripping private insurance. Significant evacuations may be needed. The public and politicians don't deal rationally with low probability, high consequence accidents.

Still no agreed-on high level waste disposal -- arguably political, not technical.

US doesn't reprocess fuel due to nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. But several other countries reprocess, and our policy does nothing to inhibit the Iranians or North Koreans.

Nuclear plants are usually sited near bodies of water that can be used for cooling. This makes them potentially vulnerable to tsunamis (e.g., Fukushima), and leakage of water-soluble fission products.

• Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than most other traditional energy sources, probably no more than 40% of what natural gas does. Its carbon emissions come from petrochemicals used in the mining, refinement, enrichment, and transportation of fuel, the construction of the power plant, the decommissioning of the power plant, and the disposal of nuclear waste. Some of these are usually neglected altogether when emissions are calculated, so figures should be regarded with healthy skepticism. In particular, the waste disposal is not usually considered, as the emissions cannot be determined accurately.
• One advantage that proponents of nuclear power site is that nuclear plants provide a lot of employment. The Vermont Yankee plant, which is one of the smaller plants around, employs 650 people, to produce 620 megawatts of power.
• Nuclear plants provide baseload power. The plants are always running, except about one month out of every 18 months or so, when they have to shut down for refueling, or when there is some unexpected event.

• There is the possibility of environmental contamination for a variety of reasons. One is human error, such as happened at Chernobyl. Another is because radioactivity "poisons" metals, causing pipes, vessels, and so on to weaken and eventually crack, spilling radioactive materials into the environment, which is probably why Vermont Yankee and 26 other plants in the United States have tritium leaks. There have been radiation leaks due to other reasons, in addition, such as unanticipated natural conditions.
• The economic and environmental costs of catastrophic accident are overwhelming. The economic cost of the Chernobyl Disaster has been estimated as high as a trillion 1995 US dollars. The amount of land rendered unusable for at least several years was about a quarter of the size of New England. The area where there were agricultural losses of one sort or another was about an eighth of the size of the United States. The area left permanently uninhabitable was many square miles.
• Nuclear plants cannot be sited just anywhere. They must be sited where there are really good heat sinks. This really means they must be sited where there is a lot of water, such as at a lake, river, or ocean. This, in turn, means that any radioactive materials that are released into the environment are dispersed easily. The plants, together with their waste, can also be subject to floods. The waste storage at some sites is only 3 inches above the 500 year flood level, and coastal plants could be subject to damage from tsunami that could occur at high tide or a mega-tsunami at any time.
• It is impossible for the insurance industry to cover the cost of a catastrophic event at a nuclear site, so the risk is typically covered by the taxpayer, as it is in the United States.
• Nuclear plants are very costly, more costly than any other source of energy widely used commercially, so governments that want nuclear plants have to subsidize them by loans or direct payment, at taxpayer expense.
• Owners of nuclear plants cannot afford to dispose of the high level waste. As a result, this is done at taxpayer expense. No one has ever solved the waste disposal problem. In some countries, the waste is exported to countries poor enough to be willing to be paid to store it. In the United States, the waste is stored at the plants until someone figures out what to do with it. When this is done, it will be done at taxpayer expense.
• The high level waste will be dangerous for over a million years. The time it takes for the waste to be reduced to the radioactivity of uranium ore (which is not all that safe) is approximately six million years. This is a large multiple of the length of human history, and we do not know how to secure it for anything like that length of time.
• There are dangers of radioactivity we do not understand. For example, men who worked in nuclear plants in the UK and subsequently left for other industries, were found to have a significantly increased risk of having children who developed leukemia, even years after their last exposure to the "normal" levels of radioactivity in the plant.
• The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant is enormous.
• The fuel is running out. We can reprocess fuel, but this is illegal in many countries because of its danger. The fuel willl probably run out at about the same time as oil and well before coal, unless we develop new nuclear technology.
• Nuclear power can be used to build nuclear bombs.

Disadvantages include the fact that nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that is quite dangerous and difficult to safely store or dispose of. And nuclear power has proved to be quite expensive. Coal is much cheaper. And nuclear power plants can have accidents that are tremendously destructive, the worst such accident being the one that happened at the Chernobyl plant. No other type of power generation presents that level of risk.

No Carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming.

Uranium safer to mine than coal (strip mining)

Nuclear plants need very little fuel making them less susceptible to fuel shortages or transport problems.

Uranium produces far more energy than any other fuel (other than the sun which only shines during the day) and is about as expensive as coal.

Nuclear power is very reliable.

Cons

Meltdowns are some of the worst disasters known to man where the reactor core heats up too much and melts; releasing radioactive clouds in the air. Many precautions are taken to prevent the plant from reaching this point, and does make the probability of disasters of this magnitude very unlikely, but is also very expensive.

Byproducts of this power require time away from society until they are no longer dangerous. Transportation of this deadly material is dangerous and the biggest problem faced by pro nuclear people is that of where to put the waste.

Nuclear plants may be vulnerable to sabotage, including terrorist attacks

You get lots of power for relatively little cost, on the other hand Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and you have to find a place to put the waste (which is really nasty).

Cons that aren't really cons

1. Nuclear waste -- According to a study by Stanford University the waste consists of the fission products. They are highly radioactive at first, but the most radioactive isotopes decay the fastest. (That's what being most radioactive amounts to). About one cubic meter of waste per year is generated by a power plant. It needs to be kept away from people. After 10 years, the fission products are 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years, the fission products will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they are originally derived from. Radical anti-nuclear elements claim that the waste is highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years because they do not tell you about reprocessing of fuel that is done in France, Japan, Canada, Russia, and many other countries that use nuclear power.

2. Nuclear proliferation - Every country wanting to make bombs has succeeded as far as is known. None have used material produced in power reactors. (Plutonium produced in RBMK reactors may have been used in Soviet weapons. The RBMK was designed as a dual-purpose reactor suitable both for power production and bomb production. For this it was necessary to be able to replace fuel rods while the reactor was operating, and this made the reactor too big for a containment structure, and this is what allowed the radioactivity to spread). Iran may be doing this. In the US we are talking about single purpose reactors for power not bombs. Radicals will try to scare you and tell you that if we build nuclear power plans and fuel reprocessing plants, then nuclear bombs will proliferate. However, the Carter Administration decided not to reprocess nominally on the grounds that if other countries could be persuaded not to reprocess, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation would be reduced. So far not one other country has been persuaded. Meanwhile other countries rely less on oil and more on nuclear, except the US.

3. National Security - Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists some will say. Well actually, the plants are designed so that a plane can be crashed into the reactor and it will not break or leak. So this is a scare tactic used by those that think we can run the country on solar power. Perhaps some day we can but not yet. Don't be fooled by those that lie about nuclear power.

4. Accidents - Fewer people have died from radiation poisoning than from mining other forms of energy. Does this make the deaths less important, no. Any death must be guarded against. But the record so far, including Chernobyl, shows that mining for coal is far mor dangerous.

5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer. However, using fossil fuels causes far more cancers. Is Nuclear Power Plants safe? No. Nothing is perfectly safe, but they are safe enough to be relied upon as a source of energy. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, some say we don't have to rely on risky nuclear power. However, the reality is that to power New York City all of New Mexico would have to be covered with solar collectors. So, solar is just not feasible yet. Give up? No, research should continue. Meanwhile Nuclear is needed until Solar is more efficient.

6. Not enough sites - Some say there are not enough sites for nuclear plants. See above answer about covering the state of New Mexico with solar cells to power New York and then tell me that there is enough room for solar. This is a false argument against nuclear power.

7. Not enough uranium - Some say - even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. This answer does not tell you that no one is proposing that ALL of the worlds energy come from Nuclear, just like it is not feasible that it all come from wind or solar. Plus this answer does not account for nuclear plans that generate more fuel and it ignores reprocessing of spent fuel to pull out more usable fuel.

8. Costs - Some say that a nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy while accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community. This of course is a complete lie. We do not yet know what jobs could be created by expanding solar nor if it would generate more jobs than expanding other sources of energy. Meanwhile, cities in France COMPETE for nuclear plants to get the good paying jobs. Which is a better paying job, nuclear engineer or solar panel installer? By the way, few will tell you that it takes and ENORMOUS amount of electricity to make solar cells. Where does that electricity come from. Well right now it comes from fossil fuels.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance - Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place. Of course the same can be said for subsidies to finance the use of any alternative power source - remember the credits for solar power on your income tax form? Well, that's tax payer financing.

• Almost zero emissions (doesn't emit green house gases). It produces electricity without pollution.
• Does not consume fossil fuels which are getting scarcer and more expensive,
• They can be sited almost anywhere unlike oil which is mostly imported.
• The advantage is a clean burning fuel that can provide energy for hundreds of miles at a time.
• The plants almost never experience problems if not from human error, which almost never happens anyway because the plant only needs like 10 people to operate it.
• A small amount of matter creates a large amount of energy... so there is little fear that we will run out of it
• A lot of energy from a single power plant

Disadvantages

• More expensive to build the plant,
• Waste products dangerous and need to be carefully stored for long time. If not contained can cause a lot of damage and spread (ie Chernobyl). The spent fuel is highly radioactive and has to be carefully stored for many years after use. This adds to the costs.
• Accidentally hiring incompetent workers.
• Waste is now contained in state of the art sealed containers and does not otherwise harm anyone. Radioactive waste that needs to be disposed from the plant isn't a good thing, there is no safe place to put it all (this waste will remain radioactive for an unacceptable amount of time).
• Nuclear power plants can be dangerous to its surroundings and employees. There has been a case where a plant has gone through a meltdown and as a result left people dead and its surroundings destroyed.

I think the positives of nuclear power is very important for development in the fiel of medicine and therapies , on the negative folks, is in the use of the extermination of the human race

ADVANTAGES

The world is running out of coal and oil. After these 2 resources become scarce nuclear energy can still be used.

Nuclear Power plants produce much more energy with much less than Fossil Fuels, which produce less and cost more.

Well operated nuclear power plants don't cause pollution, unlike the burning of Fossil fuels.

DISADVANTAGES

Nuclear energy is extremely dangerous. 2 nations, Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons that can kill every person on the face of Earth. What if there was a nuclear war, or if Terrorists got them...we'd be in deep s**t

Accidents in Nuclear power plants may occur. This is caused by a radiation or hydrogen leak, which will explode the entire factory like a bomb and the area around it.

It depends on what you mean as "recently": the Laguna Verde power plant in Mexico and its two 4.8 GW nuclear reactors were built since 1976 and 1977, respectively. Also both became fully operational since 1989 and 1995. There are no other "commercial" nuclear power plants in Central America: there were two plants in Puerto Rico, but were dismantled or decommissioned since 1968. The island of Cuba tried to build a nuclear plant with the help of the Soviet Union, but the construction was suspended due to the collapse of the later. Panama (the canal zone) had a floating nuclear power plant, but was decommissioned since 1976. Finally, the island of Jamaica has a pair of reactors, but those have a nominal output of a mere 20 kW, so they are used almost exclusively for research.

If you mean why there are no new plants being built right now, the answer is the huge costs associated with such endeavour and the fears that resulted from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.