How would you implement nuclear power in the US?

[Hawkwings]

Let's say you are put in charge of team whos objective is widespread implementation of nuclear power in the US. Assume you have a very good amount of governmental support. You can do pretty much anything you want, within reason.

Timeframes:

The first timeframe is 8 years, starting immediately after the new president is elected. Assume he is friendly toward your project.

The second timeframe is your entire life.

Over both timeframes, how would you:

1: Deal with the physical aspects of the situation?

2: Appease the public?

If this question is fundamentally flawed somewhere, please tell me so I can change the OP.

[Surlethe]

Within eight years:

1. I'd start by beginning plant construction in the eastern seaboard and in California to begin to deal with the power utilization in those areas, especially as summers continue to become warmer and the power grids are strained further and further. I'd also initiate more research into nuclear fusion.
2. If I can do anything within reason, why should I need to take steps to appease the public? Anyway, I'd begin an intensive ad campaign to win the public over to nuclear power, as well as begin courting environmental groups. Hopefully, logic and reasoned arguments would win most people over.

Within my lifetime:

1. Phase in nuclear power until it's handling a majority of American power needs. Begin to phase out fossil fuel plants as they age. The big issue over this timeframe is dealing with nuclear waste; I'd need to establish new storage facilities and create the infrastructure for shipping waste to them. Hopefully, nuclear fusion would also be within a half-century of achievement, so we could begin utilizing that in the near future.
2. Once the form of power generation has been around for several decades, people will become used to it.

[Broomstick]

We already have nuclear power stations in the US.

We've got at least six within 100 miles of where I live - a lot of the electricity in the Chicago area is nuke generated. Not a majority, but it's still a significant percentage.

So, in that sense, we've already started.

I think, though, that if you made me Supreme Dictator I'd get to building those sorts of plants that can re-use the fuel from the current designs and result in much, much less hazardous waste. (It's early, I can't remember what the fuck they're called) I'd also get folks cracking on a real, long-term solution to that problem.

[Keevan_Colton]

We already have nuclear power stations in the US.

We've got at least six within 100 miles of where I live - a lot of the electricity in the Chicago area is nuke generated. Not a majority, but it's still a significant percentage.

So, in that sense, we've already started.

I think, though, that if you made me Supreme Dictator I'd get to building those sorts of plants that can re-use the fuel from the current designs and result in much, much less hazardous waste. (It's early, I can't remember what the fuck they're called) I'd also get folks cracking on a real, long-term solution to that problem.

MOX designs I think.

Interestingly enough, it's possible to design further reactors to use the waste from those ones. It works out that so long as you have something particularly nasty left over you can probably make a plant to use it up...something the enviromentalist mental cases dont like to talk about much.

[aerius]

1) Start a Coal=Cancer campaign. There's lots of research out there on how coal plants release radiation and carcinogens, let the media in and let thm go nuts with it. Help it along with some government & industry experts. This will hopefully widespread public pressure and hysteria against coal-fired power plants.

Then when the timing's right, start a pro-nuclear campaign, emphasizing the safety and cleaniness of nuclear power. This could be a bit hard, but I have faith in the sheep...er...people.

If all goes well I can start building nuke plants and tearing down coal plants at will with the public's support.

2) After that, it's a matter of building up an infrastructure to support our nuke plants, stuff like fuel processing centres, breeder reactors, and waste disposal facilities. Long term stuff. And of course continued research into better reactor designs.

[Patrick Degan]

I would go with the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor design which can take maximum advantage of Argonne's pyroprocessing technique to recover usable reactor-grade fuel from existing waste and sell it to the public as not only a safer route for nuclear power which does not lead to nuclear weapons and extends available fuel supplies for thousands of years but also will eliminate 95% of the nuclear waste which has piled up over the last five decades. All reactor designs would be standardised along a single draught, as would the pyroprocessing machinery to reduce costs all down the line.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Along with what others have said, I would institute a program of nuclear fuel processing a disposal under safe methods. At least half of what is currently "nuclear waste" could be reprocessed into fuel.

[Wicked Pilot]

Then when the timing's right, start a pro-nuclear campaign, emphasizing the safety and cleaniness of nuclear power. This could be a bit hard, but I have faith in the sheep...er...people.

To add on to that you could create an ad compaign featureing a heavily accented, half shaven, smelly Frechman in a stereotypical striped shirt and beret calling everyone pussies for fearing the nuclear boogyman.

[Knife]

I'd start digging a big, deep hole in the Nevada desert the same day I started construction on various nuke plants near major population centers. Having a place to put the nasties would be a good selling point, I think.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I'd put on an ad campaign which "explains" how current fossil fuel reactors, whether it'd be coal, oil, or natural gas, supports terrorism. And how nuclear reactors are a safe bet in weening ourselves from Mideast oil, and in doing so keeps our troops safe and out of harms way.

But in all seriousness, I would first fund public programs to help show that nuclear reactors are very safe, regardless of what people have learned about them from the Simpsons.

[Vehrec]

Rather than a simple public relations campaign, I would look at a better way to dispose of waste than putting it in steel barrels and lining them up in a mine under a mountain. Maybe bake the waste into a ceramic sphere, which is then enclosed into another sphere of ceramic that protects the radioactive innerds.
I would always admit that nuclear power is dangerous, and therefore is somthing that we should treat with great respect. I would also point out the trasiance of oil, gas and coal.
And if I was looking at a lifetime program, I would move away from fision reactors to fussion plants. Throw lots of tax dollars at funding reaserch into it, maybe hint at the military that developing a fussion powered aircraft carrier might be a good idea. If I recall, it was Rickover's basic design that was the basis for a lot of modern nuclear reactors.

[Azrael]

=>8 Years...

-> Cut those fucking retarded oil baron subsidies and tax breaks an use the money to research, research, research the material/technology needed to get fusion on the ball.

->Snow the public. Use the maketing and branwashing machine the republicans have to graciously furnished us with to convince the people that nukes are the way to go. Send out party volunteers to articulately and skillfully defend the point publicly against the enviro-fundies to keep stupidity to a minimum.

->Build reactors to feed off waste from other reactors.

=>Beyond...

->Build an international coalition to begin the building of massive orbital solar cell arrays that will use their power to electolyze water, which will be shipped up into hydrogen and oxygen, which will then be shipped down. The hydrogen will be use for/to make reactor fuel, while the oxygen will be turned into LOX for the repeate rocket trips to/from the solar array, redcing the cost of travel.

->replace the current space shuttle scheme with a massive magnetic propulsion rail, powered by nukes, which would basically 'throw' the launch vehicle into orbit, eventually reducing the cost of space travel. The LV will of course retain some of it's chemical fuel to maintain it's speed throughout the launch.

[Keevan_Colton]

...ship loads to orbit to generate energy...

[nickolay1]

Even better, sending water into space...

[Azrael]

I concede, those two bits are ridiculous. you need 60MJ/kg to put anything into orbit, so whatever you send up for mining of any sort has to have energy density much greater than that, and water does not.

In fact the whole thing may be rediculous. Nuke power railguns....