rcoon the steam farms in spain took less than 5 years to start returning profits.
the spanish are now using that to hydroponically grow the fruit and veg that the rest of europe eat. whilst taking eu subs...another thread.
you have all taken my words far too literal.
most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)
so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?
more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.
if it was not for nuclear power the uk would of had power issues for years and i agree it is the best solution in the mean time till we can develop more ways to generate power at less cost to the planet on the whole.
also, yea, human error is always an issue.
who programs the automated systems?
who maintains the machines which are automated?
everything has a human element.
I don't think you have the vaguest idea of how nuclear power works. You've demonstrated no understanding of the fundamental ideas, and seem to be at odds with the reality of the situation. Please allow me to alleviate your lack of understanding.
At the basest levels a nuclear and fossil fuel running plant do the exact same things. They take in cool water, produce thermal energy to vaporize the water, drive the water vapor through a turbine, and use magnets and coils within the turbine to generate electricity. The only key difference is that a nuclear powered plant utilizes nuclear decay to generate heat, while fossil fuels use combustion.
Now that we've shown that a nuclear and fossil fuel power plant are completely interchangeable on a macro scale, let's look at the nuclear power plant on the micro-scale. Again taking this simply, there are two fluid loops in a nuclear reactor. The inside loop is sealed. The sealed sections pumps water through control rods to produce high pressure steam, drives turbines with the pressure from the steam, and then condenses the steam back into liquid before restarting the process. The second loop is open, and never directly comes into contact with the closed loop. Massive pumps bring water into the system, forcing it through a heat exchanger before ejecting heated liquid back out into the environment.
Paying attention to this basic description, there are only three points where failure can occur. The open loop doesn't pull water in, the closed loop doesn't pump water around, and the heat exchanger somehow allows the closed loop to vent into the open loop. Geiger counters in the open loop would detect and failure, so the last point isn't likely to occur without anyone knowing about it. The middle point is generally not even worth considering. Vaporized water is generally the "pump," so the closed loop will run as long as the fuel is hot. Point one used to be what we were concerned about. Of course, this was something to be concerned about in the 1960s....
Now, let's look back at history. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima specifically. Chernobyl stopped taking in water, but this was largely a case of BS design and being slapped together by idiots. The USSR wanted Plutonium, so they slapped together something as cheaply as possible. Despite the obvious problems, the plant actually did produce power until the 90s. Cut-rate design and a lack of any discernable safety procedures led to failure.
Three Mile Island was more interesting. The error here was also a lack of cooling water, but the inclusion of safety protocols and good design meant the "disaster" was so small that it could have been covered up if anyone was so inclined. Instead, we've got a US "disaster" at a nuclear power plant that amounted to a few extra days in the sun for its "victims." I've seen people in Jersey get some terrible tans which probably amounted to a greater radiation exposure.
Fukushima was a joke, with no punch line. Assuming the reactor wasn't there, it would have been hell on earth. A quake, and ensuing tsunami, meant that being obliterated was likely the best outcome for that area. Look at pictures of the area surrounding the reactor, and if you can honestly say that the design and construction withstanding that doesn't attest to its durability I think you've lost touch with reality. Despite all that happened the vast majority of radioactive material didn't leave that plant. I can't say the same for anything in the surrounding area.
History is made up of both tragedy and triumph. In the very likely event that you missed it, we've had a couple of decades to perfect nuclear reactor design. The immediate inclusion of a containment dome means any explosions (again, 100% related to 2H2+O2=2H2O) wouldn't eject radioactive material. The further design modifications into generation 4 reactors prevent the closed internal loop from generating too much pressure. Assuming the pressure isn't generated, a "melt down" would only lead to an interruption on power production. Furthermore, generation 4 reactors are designed to run on the waste products of all three previous generations of reactor. Say goodbye to containment tanks, and sequestration of the material in the US southwest (Yucca mountain).
I'm sure the words out of a die-hard anti-nuclear person will be that this technology is coming, and can't be counted on right now. That's the line towed by the US Democratic party. Being honest here, the Republicans have some substantive issues with science, yet they've seen the value in nuclear power. Unfortunately, the whole debate is useless. Almost three decades ago the IFR demonstrated that a complete systems failure could be overcome with physical design of a reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor. Given that the program was killed in 1994, it wouldn't be hard to pull it out of moth-balls and put into place. If we wanted, we could keep the mechanical designs which prevented failure, and install a more modern control system. Heck, in the early 90's a computer with the computational speed of your average modern laptop would have been on the super computing lists. If you don't believe search out the IFR test on youtube. Half of the crap there was based upon analog circuitry. Even if the digital controls failed, mechanics prevent any failure. This means the argument that operator interference will cause a melt down is a blatant fallacy.
On the same note, claiming humans will screw things up is patently stupid. Do you drive on a car, bus, train, or plane? The safety rate for all of these modes of transportation are significantly worse than nuclear power plant operators. You trust your doctor to prescribe medicine, despite their complete knowledge of your biochemistry. You trust many people, who are less qualified, on a daily basis. Why is trusting a research physicist somehow not acceptable?
So, you've acquiesced to us needing nuclear power. You still hold the three pronged club, that most environmental nuts wield (Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima). You've hopefully acquiesced to nuclear waste not being the problem it is generally portrayed as, given the testimony of environmentalist who used to rail hard against nuclear power. Despite all of this, you still want a world in which solar energy somehow suffices our needs. I can't take your point of view seriously, because it is divorced from reality. The solar roadways people are similarly without an inkling of how unreasonable their proposal is. As ignorance does not beget results, I cannot help but state the obvious. Your ideas are only as valuable as the supporting evidence you have, and the evidence speaks against solar energy (in this application) as anything more than an expensive waste.