Would nuclear power plant operators go home if the US government shut down continues?
They don’t have federal employees, but you knew that.The shutdown exempts critical personnel, but you knew that.Nonetheless - an interesting question.Why don’t plant operators abandon their plants? Why don’t the police stop policing, firemen stop fighting fires. Why do linemen go out in awful weather and restore our power? Why do soldiers fight and die for us?Famously the air traffic controllers went on strike back in the day. They made Reagan’s day.People are good, groups of people are bad (mobs)? Is that the moral? Is that the reason we don’t abandon our power plants?
Should the philippines operate a nuclear power plant?
developed countries have done that a long time ago. its about time a developing country like the phl eschewed its myopic view of neclear energy. but then again... oh, you really mean the philippines?
Why did we stop building nuclear plants?
Why did we stop building nuclear plants?“We” didn’t stop. There are about 60 nuclear power plants under construction right now (Reactor Database Global Dashboard).However, what is happening now is that the price of electricity from renewables (solar PV and onshore wind) is undercutting the price of electricity from nuclear power plants (yes, I know about intermittency. Stay with me here).Not only are solar and wind relatively cheaper, they also have a much shorter payback time and can be incrementally resized relatively cheaply.Add back that nuclear power projects will have to work hard for 30 years to pay back the billions invested and that renewables and storage are getting cheaper all the time and there is a serious risk that an investment in nuclear power will never actually pay back it’s investors.Then add back the budget blowouts that have plagued nuclear power plant construction. Sure, there are some reasons beyond the control of the proponents. There are multiple layers of stakeholders with overlapping laws and regulations. But the reality today is that many of these projects completely blow their budgets.All this significantly increases the Risk premium that attaches to nuclear power projects. So much so that there are no new, privately-funded, nuclear power plants in the USA or Europe that do not have significant government subsidies or guarantees. Investors in the capital market have fled nuclear.Which is not to say that these risks could not be mitigated or significantly reduced by a government that was prepared to invest in streamlining regulations and approvals and cooperating with industry to develop modular designs. But I do not see any appetite in governments around the world for this right now.
Will nuclear power make a major comeback in the near future in the US?
Will nuclear power eventually make a comeback in America?Only if there are significant government guarantees or subsidies, something which is being suggested by various politicians. Which always makes me laugh; free-market Republicans wanting to socialise power plants.Unfortunately for the nuclear power plant-construction industry, the capital market has fled nuclear. For various reasons, some good and some bad, which don’t matter much in the end. The bottom line is that there are no privately-funded nuclear power plants being built without some form of government backing.The Risk premium for investment in nuclear power has made it no longer economic (without significant government guarantees or subsidies).There would need to be some significant breakthroughs in the cost of constructing nuclear power plants for them to remain competitive in future, and based on the performance of existing construction projects (cough, Vogtle or cough, Hinkley Point C) where the cost has blown out by BILLIONS, that seems unlikely. The LCOE for Nuclear is just not competitive.Many countries, like the USA, will still need a healthy domestic nuclear industry to support their strategic military needs, so nuclear won’t disappear any time soon. But it won’t be making a “comeback” either.
Will privately owned company’s ever be able to make nuclear weapons and/or reactors?
Most Nuclear reactors are built, owned and operated by publicly owned companies. However, there is no reason, other than money, that a privately owned company could not build, own, or operate a nuclear power plant. Nuclear Weapons, is another story. Uranium and Plutonium (called Special Nuclear Material (SNM)) used by both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons, is licensed by the federal government. You can not buy, own, or ship SNM without a government license. The government will not issue a license for a nuclear bomb as possession of a nuclear bomb by a non government authority is illegal. However, if you had enough money and could build the proper facilities and hire the right scientists and engineers and get your hands on sufficient amounts of SNM (this is a big IF) you could build whatever you wanted. That said, control of SNM is very strict. If you're even suspected of trying to buy SNM you're likely to be visited in the middle of the night by a bunch of people all dressed in black with lots of guns and other nasty stuff and end up in Guantanamo.
Which is not a problem associated with the increased use of nuclear energy?
Is this a quiz question? I don't know what answer they want because in reality none of those are true. I am sure whoever wrote the question has an opinion but it is a wrong one. Nuclear Power Plant Explosions are very rare - And basically impossible in countries like the USA where we safeguard things. Nuclear waste disposal is not as big of a deal as the media makes it out to be. There is a very small volume of nuclear waste. It would fit in a large garage. Serious Nuclear Accident is pretty much the first question. What is more serious than a nuclear explosion or meltdown. Again, if the people know what they are doing then nuclear power plants can be very safe. The stories you hear about problems with nuclear plants are in countries where they had idiots running their nuclear programs. Cost of a nuclear plant is on par with any other type of power plant. Maybe even less.
Should the US government fund a Manhattan Project to develop fusion reactors?
No. What the US government should do is get the NRC out of the way. The NRC, with its unscientific regulations and outrageous fees, has crippled the civilian nuclear power industry.We already have what it takes to build safe fission nuclear power plants, we just need to build more. Yes, the new designs will be even better but if we don’t get back to building fission nuclear power plants soon, we may never have another chance.Fear of radiation is usually at the root of the preference for fusion over fission. If that is the case for you, please read Radiation and Reason, the impact of science on a culture of fearFusion will be wonderful someday, maybe. Meanwhile, back in the present, let’s build fission nuclear power plants.