Will the USA build any more nuclear power plants?

Yep... going to shed-sized ones though. The navy uses lots of smaller nuclear reactors. They work very well, and have been trouble free for years. No reason not to use that technology elsehwere. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Edit... I will happily.. no joyously, put one in my back yard.

This is statement from Patrick Moore: “Activists falsely claim nuclear energy is costly when, in fact, both the International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have said new nuclear energy technologies make the construction and operating costs of nuclear energy less expensive than fossil fuel and any other form of electricity generation,” said Moore. The conclusion of the International Energy Agency: "While respecting the right of each State to define its national energy policy in accordance with its international obligations, vast majority of participants affirmed that nuclear energy, as a proven, clean, safe, COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY (emphasis mine), will make an increasing contribution to the sustainable development of human kind throughout the 21st century and beyond." http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2009/cn169/cn169_Concluding_Statement_E.pdf

If the US does not build now, we will not have the capability later. It is crucial to the continued success of the United States, without this stable energy source and infrastructure the US will be a third world country in 50 years. Here are the pros and cons of nuclear: PROS !. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology. 2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem. 3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin) 4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations. 5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors. 6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released. 7. Creates jobs. 8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans. 9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity. 10. Fantastic safety record. CONS 1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear. 2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back. 3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available. 4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available. 4. High cost of personnel. 5. Security concerns, Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer. Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement. I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard". Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner. Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

Yes But they won't let the cat out of the bag until the cap and trade legistration is passed so they can make additional money off of it. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html And large nuclear power plants are not the only option. there are small self contained nuclear batteries and units that are already in developement stage. http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

yeah but thats cause solar hardly produces any kilowatts! NUCLEAR!can produce MEGAWATTS! HARD CORE! Think of nuclear fusion! the possibilities of that!

Yes we will if we don't want to change our infrastructure. The problem with any source of energy whether it be Nuclear or even wind energy is that no one wants it in their back yard.

No... Because there will always be enough people saying, "NOT IN MY BACK YARD!"

No. There is a big problem with them getting liability insurance. Nuclear power has never lived up to the hype of "free power" for all ! Then there is the the teeny tiny little problem of the DEADLY waste lasting FOREVER ! It was just a "flash in the pan" technology !

I used to live next to one. It was going to be cheap efficient power for the area. It turned out to be a economic and deadly failure. Of course, the safety was hotly debated. I did a report on the plant in the 80's while in college. I was quite impressed with the P.R. of the plant until I did some independant research. Seems that out of hundreds of radioactive isotopes, the NRC only requires the monitoring of about 25 of them. Some of them, in only minute quantities, can cause a woman to stillborne a child. A release during a specific timeframe saw this occurance with the rate of stillbornes at the local hospital increasing multiplicably, then declining slowly in the receding months. The operation of the plant was obviously covert, but a study of the local water supply found the presence of a chemical that was experimentally used in Japan to lessen the effects of nuclear exposure. Coincidence? I think not. Eventually saftey concerns, along with the fact that the plant could not operate to it's theoretical potential and was considerably more expensive to operate forced it's eventual closure. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1997/97-113.html They now intend to use the areas cash crop (cows) to produce electricity from cattle bi-products (manure). Talk about a reversal from high tech to compost....http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11848033?source=rss It all boils down to the fact that people don't want nukes in thier own backyard. And further, what we can do to dispose of the components of nuclear generation. I can't even begin to say I understand much about it, but as I understand it processing and using nuclear fuels only increase thier half-life, which is the time that it take for them to break down naturally. With half-lives of 160,000 years or better, I think storage and what to do with waste is a huge problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233 It is possible that someday we may have better technology and be able to address many of these issues, but I'm not sure that we have been able to unequivocally answer these questions and with the effects of this technology far outlasting the time that we can imagine, I think it would be wise to use all due caution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel Will the USA build nuke plants? It depends largely on economics and the availability of other technologies. Until they can address the issues of waste realistically, I don't think they should. I think there is much more availability and less environmental impact in hydrogen technology. From a novice standpoint, it seems to be more logical, and chemically attainable, with less long-term impact. And I'm certain that solar, geo-thermal, wind, and many other renewable sources, not unlike the using of manure for power, could be further explored. (GeeZ, if we could tap into the source from our nations capital... They probably could solve our nations energy needs...)