Maybe we could also just try to use less energy and fewer petroleum products in general.
Just sayin’.
Five last February in Middletown, CT.
Are you volunteering your family to go first? If not, why not?
The explosion had nothing to do with the steam plant. (Actually, the plant was a dual-fuel natural gas and oil-fired Siemens combined-cycle plant that utilized a gas turbine and a steam turbine. In such a plant, the waste heat from the gas turbine is run through the steam turbine to increase the efficiency of the plant.)
Anyway, the explosion had nothing to do with the gas turbine or the steam plant. The explosion likely occurred due to a spark that ignited natural gas being purged out of a supply line.
The plant was not even operating at the time of the accident, so it’s not correct to characterize this as a “steam plant” accident. It was a natural gas explosion during construction.
Thorium Reactors
This article is 4 years old, but from what I have heard, this might be a good direction to go if we are serious about nuclear.
I’m totally for this (as mentioned, I drive an enviro-weenie Prius) but we can’t get our energy use to 0 (or to a point we don’t need oil/coal) without nuclear power. We probably never will but we can at least minimize it.
France is pretty unique-they have installed nuclear capacity that can power about 80% of their electricity needs. They did this in pretty record time, too.
As far as I can see, this has given France three enormous benefits:
-they don’t have to worry about the price of oil/coal
-their nuclear industry is so large, that they have economies of scale (in building new plants)
-their expertise in running nuclear plants has made their reactors reliable and safe
Now, I understand that they were able to do this because:
-they standardized on one reactor design
-they educated their people on the cost/benefits of nuclear power
-their government was able to build without getting bound up in leagl red tape
In the USA, we have a situation where we need clean power-but the anti-nuke movement does everything it can to block new plants from being built.
Why can’t we emulate the French?
Because:
If we tried to do that, conservatives would howl about socialism and the incompetence of government intervention in what should be a free market solution.
Huh. I’m a conservative and I’m all in favor of emulating the French model, with a standardized design, educating the average American idiot, and sweeping aside the tort obstructionist abuse in this country.
I don’t think I’m howling, but I guess I must be, and just not realize it. 
The irony is that I can’t think of many conservatives (who are actually for nuclear energy…there are plenty that aren’t) who would really bridle at standardized reactor designs, educating the public or even the government providing funding for nuclear energy projects, while I can think of plenty of liberals (again, not all) who are knee jerk opposed to nuclear energy simply out of fear based on what they have been told for years to think on the subject.
FTR, I don’t consider myself a conservative, but I do play one on the StraightDope, and I approve of this message…
-XT
Not to worry–it isn’t!
The plants that my company owns typically burn gas but when the price of gas gets prohibitively expensive, we can and do burn diesel. I assume that this is a fairly common practice and that we are not unique in the industry.
We have more nuclear plants than the rest of the world. We produce more nuke energy than the rest combined. You claim that is not serious about nuclear energy?
Sure, why not? We’ve all got to go sometime.
progress currently being made toward one nuclear plant to be located in western Idaho. Google tells me that the residents of the county are all for it and practically welcoming the company with brownies and parades. They are at least quite happy about it.
I’ve been following the story and will continue to do so. The first nuclear power plant to be built in decades is a pretty big story in my mind.
Energy generation is already a government-subsidized regulated industry. They can cry all they want, but if they make nuke plants free market, all the coal, oil, hydro and wind farms get to be free market too. No one would go for that, except the power companies 
The anti-nuke expression of this sentiment is ‘hairshirt green’ or ‘apocalyptic environmentalism’ and it essentially wants to destroy our civilization and replace it with something more ‘sustainable’, where ‘sustainable’ is usually taken to mean ‘small local farms, very limited industry, and practically no global trade’. This is also where the anti-globalization left comes in: Multinational corporations are the Great Satan, and must be destroyed at all costs. (This intersects with old-fashioned populism and the radical labor left, bringing us back to Emma Goldman and the 1930s Old Left, aka the ‘Reds’.)
Anyway, it isn’t feasible because it isn’t just a lifestyle change. They aren’t merely asking people to give up their SUVs and ride bikes everywhere: They’re asking, whether they know it or admit it or not, people to die off once the civilization keeping them alive begins to falter. They’re asking us to reduce the carrying capacity of our planet by not using fertilizers or pesticides anymore. They’re asking us to kill some of the most vulnerable people due to the environmental burden of keeping them alive.
It all comes down to Malthusian extrapolation, which is the notion that population curves have no inflection point once they go geometric. This notion is put paid to by the fact Japan and large regions of Europe are not even breeding to replacement anymore. In fact, it seems wealth above a certain point correlates strongly with families going from 3-4 kids per to something less than 2. However, being good little Malthusians, they predict a Big Blowup, a Population Bomb, based on the implied premise that the First World is breeding as fast as the Third.