Because people are comfortable to do everyday things that kill themselves slowly and predictably by the millions instead of images of glowing green mushroom clouds in their heads.
And? I see scary bright colors with no explanation of what they actually are. If you want to talk about ruining the ocean coal has dumped so much mercury into the ocean that it's not safe for pregnant women or young children to eat predatory salt water fish on a regular basis anymore.
No, we learn from our mistakes and make sure we limit our causalities to a minimum, and how many people died after being exposed to the radiation.. compared to the lives lost during that natural catastrophe?
In one fell swoop, thorium fuel, which is safer, less messy to clean up, and not prone to nuclear weapons proliferation, could quench the complaints of nuclear power critics everywhere.
Enter thorium. Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesnt contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved.
This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors.
Not only does this mean that we can do away with uranium, which is expensive to enrich, dangerous, and leads to nuclear proliferation, but it also means that we finally have an easy way of recycling plutonium.
And? I see scary bright colors with no explanation of what they actually are. If you want to talk about ruining the ocean coal has dumped so much mercury into the ocean that it's not safe for pregnant women or young children to eat predatory salt water fish on a regular basis anymore.
Isin't India a leader in thorium based reactors? don't they have a reactor up and running and building more?
If we can find alternatives that are safer and much more environmentally friendly, then why not pursue that?
Nuclear reactors are only "clean" until their fuel is spent, then you end up with waste that is many times worse than what other power plants produce.
For any nuclear reactors we do build now, they should be pebble bed reactors. Not sure why we aren't doing that.
You are suggesting that nuclear is dirtier than fossil fuels?
Of the high density solutions, nuclear is by far the safest and cleanest.
Coal: Spews carcinogens and ironically radiation directly into the atmosphere, creates many tons of CO2.
Oil: Expensive, spews carcinogens directly into the atmosphere, creates many tons of CO2.
Hydro: Out of places to put new dams, dams destroy square miles of land.
Wind: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.
Solar: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.
Tidal: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.
Geothermal: Great where you can install it.
Fusion: Maybe in 50 years.
The bright colors are radioactive leakage, pretty self-explanatory. ASR Limited is a very credible company who has been tracking Fukushima floating debris and leaking radioactive seawater from the beginning.
Of course, the eventual official admission was begat by years of ASR Limited's research.
Fukushima Plant is Leaking Radioactive Water Into the Sea
July 23, 2013 2:30 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Fukushima+Plant+is+Leaking+Radioactive+Water+Into+the+Sea/article32026.htm
This. Compared to all the other ways we ruin our planet, nuclear accidents barely register.
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal plant.
Fukushima was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission and that did not follow industry best practices, it should hardly be used to judge all nuclear.
There are many types of reactor, not all are equal and many designs are much safer inherently than the light water design of Fukushima.
LOL I've heard that one before. Chernobyl was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission! They make much safer plants now!
Until something goes wrong with another plant. 3 mile island was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission! They make much safer plants now!
ALL plants are outdated after a certain number of years! Because progress!
Also, the problem was not with the plant but with the company running it not following procedures, etc.
Well, you can count on the companies running nuke plants to cut every corner they can to save money and put profits into their shareholders hands.
That's my basic problem with nuke plants. Profit making corporations plus governments that are controlled by corporate interests are what make nuke plants dangerous.
Good points. Coal and oil plants don't suffer from any of those problems.....,
Millions have never died from a nuclear power plant.Sure, there is no difference between an accident at a nuclear power plant and an accident at a coal or oil power plant.
Except maybe for the millions dead and an area the size of New Jersey made uninhabitable.
Aside from that, exactly the same thing.
What was France's track record with their nuclear plants? I know they had an issue with oversupply of electricity, but was it cost effective for their citizens?
It's cost effective, compare them to other Western European countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing