Question:

What are the benefits and drawbacks to the proliferation of nuclear
power as our main energy source?  What are the main obstacles that
hinder the development of nuclear energy in the U.S. and around the
globe?  What is the best approach today to the expansion of nuclear
power?

Sidenotes:

I have some layman's knowledge of fission power and some understanding
of the nuclear power plants.

I am especially interested in the processes that brought about the
standstill of the U.S. nuclear energy program.  My understanding is
that this is largely due to economic pressure from the large oil
companies, and the unfortunate occurrence of the Three Mile Island and
the Chyrnobyl accidents that opened the floodgates for a mass
propaganda campaign (sponsored by those oil companies?).  Note, I have
only heard of this occurance, as I was born after the fact.

I am familiar with the nuclear waste argument, but I'm also aware of
the existing efforts to develop technologies that battle this problem
-- i.e. to proccess waste to make it safer/reduce its volume and bury
the rest safely underground.

The way I see it, nuclear energy is of great benefit -- large energy
supply, clean, safe (if efforts to continually develop safety and the
technology are consciously implemented), and abundant.  It is also a
great power source for space exploration (I am personally aware of
fission considered for ion drives' power).

This topic is fascinating to me because I am upset that nuclear power
has basically been abandoned in the US.  I believe that with modern
technological advances fission energy source can be developed into
safe, clean, abundant power source for this planet and can solve many
of our current problems  -- if only enough willpower and resources
were avalible.  I also see it driving many other technologies, space
exploration is one example.

These are all my personal viewpoints and assumptions.  What I want to
find is concrete data to support or dispute my feelings.  I want to
know the facts, the history, and the current situation in this field.

Hello keruha

   This is a complex issue about which a lot was written,
   lot of data are available, and which is also a subject of controversy.
   Hard technical facts, popular delusions and madness of the crowds,
   possible behind the scenes manipulations and possible conspiracies,
   international politics, new technologies - they all intersect in this one
   mega-issues - the energy future.

Current situation
Fuel sources in 2000 in US    

Coal 52%
Nuclear 20%
Gas 16%
...
.
How will it change? 

  Let's start with some general data from DOE, US department of Energy
Annual Energy Outlook 2003 With Projections to 2025 
 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

 and a report with specific focus on Nuclear Energy
 http://www.ne.doe.gov/briefings/Jun02_03%20ANS%20San%20Diego.pdf.

and overview of the energy sources and programs:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ENERGYSOURCES

The links lead to statistics, projections, data, programs
but I think you want more then bunch of links.
So here is list of factors which shaped the past and will affect the future.

Note: I am following the (illogical but common) use of calling
fission technologies Nuclear and consider them separate
from fusion technologies. I will also reserve the word
'proliferation' for the use in the sense 'proliferation
 of nuclear weapons' - something to be avoided.

Here is brief chronology:(by FAS - not an unbiased think-tank).
 http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/fmd/chron.htm

Creation of USEC in 1996 marks the divorce of two previously
closely interwoven issues: nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
Many public sentiments are still influenced by this past
and many legacy issues, which includes responsibility of government
for nuclear waste disposal and cost of decommissioning of old plants,
will remain with us for a long time - probably decades.

To balance that report, here are some data from USEC itself.
http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/megatons_status.asp

USEC is publicly traded and it's stock price and futures reflect
prospects for Nuclear Energy, not only in US.

There are unknown and unpredictable issues which will determine
those prospects:

The competitive energy sources are 

Solar Power Satellites
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-2.html
http://www.spaceref.com/directory/future_technology/solar_power_satellites/
which face the Orbit-Earth 
and nuclear fusion.
which is cleaner then fission - but there,as yet
www.nuc.berkeley.edu/fusion/fusion.html

The use of coal as source is limited by the effect of 
global warming and prospect for carbon sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems. The 'clean burning technologies', like fuel cells, while
important in short term are secondary.

Major unknown: While models of global climate change are more
and more comprehensive, the Earth energy input (solar constant)
is and will remain unpredictable.

Ultimately, particularly in peaceful future we hope for,
the prices will determine mix of fuel sources.

To estimate how much the current situation in US is influenced by
political, rather then technical, safety and waste disposal issues
it is useful to look at France:

To say that France is dependent on nuclear energy would be an
understatement. Over 35% of France's total energy requirement and over
78% of French electricity demands are met by nuclear energy. In
1999, France generated 375 billion kWh of electricity from its
fifty-eight pressurized water reactors currently in operation. The
electrical generation capacity of these plants is 65,702 MWe

[  http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_docs/pubs_docs/PDF_Files/Peder
OP Folder/dreamweaver/contents/sect2.html ]

Note: whole string in brackets, not just the blue text is the URL and
needs to be pasted into Location field of the browser. This is a US
university and they should now better about the proper URL  syntax.
Sorry about that.
     


  The French view is here:
   Nuclear power: tomorrow's energy source
 
In France, 76% of electricity is produced by nuclear power. The
industry's pricing levels are among the most competitive in Europe.
Thanks to its 58 nuclear reactors France enjoys almost 50% energy
autonomy thus ensuring a highly stable supply. Equally, as a
non-producer of greenhouse gases, the nuclear sector can rightfully
claim to have an environmentally friendly impact
   http://www.cea.fr/gb/institutions/nuclear_power.htm

This may be what US situation will look like, once the specter
of nuclear war recedes into history.

Here are few more link for reading and stats. There are not random,
but they are a subset of what is available.

The department of energy DOE collects data, makes models and forecasts
Here is overview of the energy sources
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ENERGYSOURCES 

and here a list of more  detailed breakdown  which provides links to
important factors, such as 

  Carbon sequestration  
  http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ST_SS2 

fossil fuel efficiency 
  http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ST_SS4        

and here is the gateways to data bases of reports and articles
 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/    


Here is an analysis  which favors your view  and giving 
              Reasons for Using Nuclear Power As An Energy Source.
      http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm 

 and global view
           http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/

Just about all the terms used, can be used as
SEARCH TERMS and will bring wealth of links to explore and study.

 If you are happy with the answer, please do rate it.
 Else, kindly, ask for a clarification.

hedgie

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 26 Nov 2003 13:06 PST

errata

paragraph which says:

Solar Power Satellites
which face the Orbit-Earth 
and nuclear fusion.
which is cleaner then fission - but there,as yet

should read

 Solar Power Satellites
which face the Orbit-Earth  unsloved energy delivery technological problems

and nuclear fusion.
which is cleaner then fission - but all required technology
is not available as yet


Sorry about those typos. I sometimes get too much
focused on the content that I neglect the form,
but it should not happen.

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 03 Jan 2004 08:57 PST

I want to add the following report
which is independen, informed  and objective
 and also reasonably short and readable

It  is followed by a debate, reflecting
the variety of arguments and beliefs

     http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D3FF.htm

I think it's largely been abandoned-in the U.S., anyway, because of
the actual and perceived safety risks, and "not in my backyard"
attitude. Also, fuel cell research has been making the science
headlines lately.

omniscientbeing-ga
Google Answers Researcher

The "perceived safety risks, and "not in my backyard"
attitude" are exactly the type of propaganda I was referring to.  And
I am wrong at saying that fuel cells are no match with the large-scale
power output of the contemporary nuclear power plants?

Hello,

   The biggest roadblock to a greater deployment of nuclear energy in
the U.S. is politics, by which I mean the prevailing perception of it
as too risky. Growth of fission energy in the U.S. came pretty much to
a halt when the Three Mile Island incident occurred, damaging its
public image and making the construction of new plants too risky to
investors. (A nuclear power plant does, of course, cost over a billion
dollars to start up.) It's all too ironic that Three Mile Island
actually demonstrated how safe a power plant can be; in the emergency
the reactor was shut down as planned with no important hazard to the
community. The Chernobyl accident was a major disaster precisely
because the design philosophy in the old Soviet Union was severely
inadequate, and was nothing compared to western robustness.

   Remarkably, interests of the oil industry haven't much relevance to
retarding the nuclear industry, since oil is a major energy source
only for automobiles.

   The one thing that might make fission much more attractive to the
U.S. citizenry is if other major sources of domestic electricity
become short in supply, too expensive, or become unattractive on a
level comparable to what fission is today. If our lifestyle based
demand for power increases greatly in the coming decades, then
hydroelectric could be maxed out, since there's only so much of it
that can be tapped economically. There's a tremendous amount of
American coal of course, but its such a polluter that a future
generation could consider it more of a liability than whatever risks
there are with fission.

   We would definitely benefit from using nuclear power for a greater
portion of our supply than is currently the fact. But of course we
should never consider using it, or any source, for all, or nearly all,
of our needs. (Interestingly, that's exactly the case right now, since
most of American electricity is generated with just one system,
burning coal. Nuclear provides about 10%. I'm not sure what percent is
hydroelectric.) Just as a guess off the top of my head, I'd personally
go for not more than 50% nuclear, while building a few more large
hydroelectric plants. I'd continue to burn coal in some progressively
diminishing contribution while increasing the development & deployment
of a large variety of supplimentary alternatives.

-Mark Martin

Dear hedgie-ga,

Thanks for your answer.  To be truthful, I didn't expect my question
to be answered so fast.  It will take me a few days to digest the
information you posted to be able rate it or ask for further
clarification.  This is because I won't be under my PC in those next
few days -- Thanksgiving holiday and all.  I will get back to you as
soon as possible though, thanks again.

Keruha

          Thanks for the comment.
 There is no rush, take your time.
 When you are ready, I will be happy to respond to
 eventual RFCs.

  Happy Holidays

hedgie