In a half century there was ~4 major meltdowns in the world that affect people lives:
1) Kyshtym disaster (57')[1] - it was old production site after WWII - will never be again
2) Chernobyl (86') - stress-testing nuclear plant and disabling all levels of protection - will never be again
3) Fukushima Daiichi (11') - Obsolete block not stopped<p>Other disasters are not affected anyone outside of the plant, for example Three Mile Island. And that's all! On the other side, hydro plants actually make things much worse to a nature and already killed big rivers in siberia. Fossil-fuel stations (67% of worldwide energy) are even worse.<p>Nuclear plants are still the safest for environment and the only way to bring electricity to developing world because it can be very cheap. Take a look at B. Gates nuclear reactor: <a href="http://terrapower.com/pages/technology" rel="nofollow">http://terrapower.com/pages/technology</a><p>Building some nuclear plants will be able to feed anyone almost forever. Unlike solar energy that you need to keep in batteries for the night. And who say that batteries can't explode? It is looks like fear of flighting: no reason to fear planes and much much more people die in car accidents that in plane one. Same here - much more people die from other sources that from nuclear plant disaster.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster</a>
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster</a>
[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...</a>
This is a bad idea.<p>Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, and most consistent method of power generation would be disastrous.<p>[0]<a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html" rel="nofollow">http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html</a><p><i>Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter... urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.<p>Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.<p>That isn't realistic, the letter said.<p>"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.</i>
This is the last state you want to shut these reactors down in. California has mountains of regulations that only apply to <i>new</i> things. Many (most?) buildings that exist today could never be built because of some violation.<p>Once these plants shut down they will never be reopened.
It's amazing to me that the political groups fanning the flames of climate change panic are the same ones holding back the development of the single best alternative to fossil fuels that we have. Nuclear could power the world.