With the concern over riding CO2, there is a renewed interest in nuclear power. While many Climate Change proponents reject nuclear power, there are some those who think that nuclear power does have a role play in reducing CO2. After all,today France produces most of its electric power from non CO2 producing sources thanks to nuclear power.

So if there is an increase in nuclear power, or just the replacing of old existing nuclear power with new nuclear plants, what improvements should we be looking for over existing designs?

I think these are some of the things we should be asking from new designs:

1. Improved safety, of course. But I don't think this is actually the biggest need, most current reactor designs are safe. 3 Mile Island was the last major nuclear accident in the US, and that was 40 years ago. Despite a lot of claims, no death directly related to 3 Mile Island disaster has been proven, and there has been no major increases in cancer death deaths in the area around the site. Still, improvements can always be made .

2. Lower cost to build - one of the biggest drawbacks to the high cost of nuclear power plant construction.

A. Have modular where most odnrhe construction is done off-site. Current designs have a lot of their construction done onsite, which can make delays costly. Quality can also be better monitored at the factory than on a construction site.

B. Ensure the public, especially the anti-nuclear folksz invovleved in the planning stages. While the anti-nuclear cook are never likely to approve of any nuclear plant, by giving them the opportunity to get involved in the initial design phase will make it more difficult for them to demand costly late design changes.

3. Improve the start up and shut down times od nuclear power plants. I haven't heard anyone discuss this, but current nuclear power plants take a long time to start up and shut down. To bring power on line quickly, most companies resort to gas turbine generators which can quickly be brought online to meet peak demands, or to compensate for an unexpected loss of other generating capacity. If you could have a nuclear design that could be quickly brought online, it would help elimate the need for these fossil fuel gas turbines that otherwise still would be needed.

4. More efficient fuel use and reduced nuclear waste - while the cost the fuel isn't really the issue, in many current designs the fuel is spent when the concentration of fissionable Ur235 drops below a certain percentage. More efficient fuel use would reduce rue amount of spent fuel that needs to be reprocessed.

5. More flexible designs - right now, nuclear power plants are only economical in large (1000 MW+) designs. If smaller plants could be made economical, it would make nuclear power a more viable option for replace fossil fuel in smaller markets.

Any other improvements that anyone else can think of that should be made?