Nuclear Energy: What's the problem?

[Madly_Sane]

Honestly, what's the big deal? Most americans I've had the chance to discuss nuclear energy with completely disagree with nuclear energy being a reliable, safe, and more efficient source. More often than not, they are scared of having any nuclear plants because of Chernobyl.
I've been wanting to start a thread on nuclear energy for a while. I want to know how you guys feel about it.

 

[Madly_Sane]

Imo, nuclear energy is safe as long as you have the right people working and it's not in Ukraine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030...
Research into these reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals, including to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste and natural resource utilization, and decrease the cost to build and run such plants.

Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
-Nuclear waste that lasts a few centuries instead of millennia
-100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
-The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
-Improved operating safety

Disadvantages:
One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes". As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".
Another set of disadvantages is related to the risk of using metallic sodium as a coolant. In case of a breach, sodium explosively reacts with water. Fixing breaches may also prove dangerous, as the noble gas argon is also used to prevent sodium oxidation. Argon is an asphyxiant, so workers may be exposed to this additional risk. This is a pertinent problem as can be testified by the events at the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Monju at Tsuruga, Japan.

I hope this will soon be a reality and people will see that it is the way to go.

 

[fisharmor]

The problem with nuclear power is that the state does not protect property rights and does not enforce liability.
Regulatory agencies have been set up to police the operation - but all this does is rubber-stamp their operation.
They're also running as a corporation or other entity with limited legal liability for what they're doing.
Or, in the worst case, it's an outright fascist or totally state-owned concern, in which case there is zero liability altogether (Edit: Fukushima is apparently private, but I haven't heard about any liability cases or whether they're even possible).

Entrepreneurs weigh risk vs. profits.
The true risk of generating nuclear power is obscured.
If the only guarantee the state placed on nuclear power was "if this goes horribly wrong everything you own is going to be confiscated to pay for it, and you're probably going to die in a rape cage", then the market might not consider it such a good risk.
Or, perhaps the market would respond by implementing safety measures that were capable of withstanding even highly unlikely natural disasters.

However, the state doesn't go after the people who irradiate children: it protects them.
Therefore, it's a lot better deal for them.

 

[Wesker1982]

The problem with nuclear power is that the state does not protect property rights and does not enforce liability.
Regulatory agencies have been set up to police the operation - but all this does is rubber-stamp their operation.
They're also running as a corporation or other entity with limited legal liability for what they're doing.
Or, in the worst case, it's an outright fascist or totally state-owned concern, in which case there is zero liability altogether (Edit: Fukushima is apparently private, but I haven't heard about any liability cases or whether they're even possible).

Entrepreneurs weigh risk vs. profits.
The true risk of generating nuclear power is obscured.
If the only guarantee the state placed on nuclear power was "if this goes horribly wrong everything you own is going to be confiscated to pay for it, and you're probably going to die in a rape cage", then the market might not consider it such a good risk.
Or, perhaps the market would respond by implementing safety measures that were capable of withstanding even highly unlikely natural disasters.

However, the state doesn't go after the people who irradiate children: it protects them.
Therefore, it's a lot better deal for them.

Great post. +rep