Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Problem of Nuclear Power in the U.S.

Though many countries almost exclusively rely on nuclear power for electrical power like Great Britain and France and Japan, many countries like the U.S. are not really good candidates at present to increase their use of nuclear power.

Three mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind as the primary reasons nuclear power should not be increased in the U.S.

However, 9-11 should also give pause to more nuclear plants going up in the U.S. for it is my understanding that most U.S. plants can only withstand a direct crash as in straight in at 500 mph plus from above of a Boeing 707 or 737 or something of that size. Anything larger like a Boeing 747 or bigger would leave the surrounding area(at least 500 square miles uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years). (Look at Chernobyl and what happened there and how hundreds of miles around are still not habitable unless you only want to live until 30 or younger).

Then if you add to that the costs in places like California in order to even try to make these things safe in Earthquake country(Diablo Canyon never came online because the pipes were put in backwards so millions of taxpayer monies were lost in that debacle). And San Onofre still works primarily because of Camp Pendleton Marine base and the fact that there is a large buffer of the marine base between major population centers and the nuclear power plant. (The large marine base lies between San Onofre Nuclear plant and San Diego. So mostly only the city of San Clemente is seriously exposed along with the mostly unoccupied marine training base.

Every other nuclear power plant in California either never opened or has been shut down because of problems of one kind or another. So even if you disregard 9-11 and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, still Earthquakes are fatal to any new Nuclear power plants in California or the earthquake prone west.

No comments: