good short article . I think nuc far better than oil at least until solar or something clean comes mainstream.
There are three fundamental problems with nukes:
1. Our propensity to screw things up or let things get wrecked. In this case, these types of plants are targets. Also, even though generally safe, one screw up can cause a huge problem.
Solar given its rate of increasing efficiency and flexibility, and especially nobody "owning" the sun, makes just too much sense.
I'd recommend the following article by Amory Lovins from the Rocky Mountain Institute
Can't say I'm a big believer in nuclear plants as our savior because of:
1) Major gov subsidy needed to build
2) No agreed upon method to dispose of nuclear waste - who wants to live near a Yucca mountain or near any rail line that will transfer nuclear waste to a central storage site?
3) Obvious terrorist targets
4) By product can readily be used to make nuclear bomb material - not good from a global stability perspective.
You're standard is contrived to be unachievable.
Every energy system (generation, transportation, storage, end use) has waste associated with it. While nuclear waste is highly toxic, the quantity of that waste is lower than some of the others, and all of it is contained rather than escaping into the ecosystem.
How much shrink wrap plastic is hidden in landfills and roadside ditches each and every day? Is that more or less of a bad thing than spent nuclear fuel stored at a highly engineered and monitored facility. What about Co2, acid rain, smog?
One method is to wait 10000 years. Possibly (perhaps likely if we try) other methods will avail themselves before then.
Nuke energy, yes. We need to diversify our energy portfolio and shift away from oil as a transportation fuel, which means greater use of electricity (hybrids and electric cars), which means greater electrical generating capacity. Nukes have a role to play here.
Regarding cost. That seems like something that we could drive down? Designing a plant once and build many instances of that same design would help. I wonder if the national guard could be tasked to protect these sites?
Batman votes a resounding yes and rededicates Batman to rounding up the pointy head intellectual EVILDOERS who populate anti nuclear circles. Of couse Batman knows that Our Leader, George W. "Burning" Bush isthe best President ever and that eventually Rep. Michele "Babe" Bachmann will eventually be Ameerica's Joan of Arc, but Oh fora chance to elect someone like George Wallace again. Eternally vigilant, Batman
The final solution to the world's energy woes is the:
Accelerator Driven Thorium Reactor.
30 MW in gives 10 GW out; no chance of runaway since you can just turn off the accelerator driver; no long-lived isotopes are produced...all waste decays away in 200 years.
Go google and read.
Then wonder to yourself aloud why India, Norway and Italy are developing the concept while the USA is continuing to squat in the wasteland of the middle east shooting up Iraqi kids from helicopters.
From a story by David Scaffer of the Minneapolis StarTribune 01/01/2014 "In an unprecedented ruling a judge reviewing whether Xcel Energy should invest in new natural gas generators vs. large solar power arrays concluded Tuesday that solar is a better deal…it is the first time in the United States that solar energy without a state subsidy has beaten natural gas in an official head-to-head price comparison." The story aslso states the project in question involves building 20 solar arrays at a cost of $250 million. So you ask why did I choose to post this on this old thread and arguably OT as well? I just had to see how many on this board and especially this thread are still hot for nuclear power now that it is manifest that solar is not only cleaner but where the money is to be made as well. That goes double for this Xcal character who everyone can read for themselves professes to be fine with a Thorium reacter in his home town, Still LMAO!
I’m not against nuclear power or even fossil fuels. They all have a place and all are needed I just see new alternative clean technologies as having the greatest potential for growth solar as an example is clean and practical with many new technological breakthroughs have come in recent years requiring less light and generating greater amounts of energy. The list for alternatives beyond nuclear go on and on. Nuclear dose not come without its own baggage and if someone tells you differently they would be lying through there teeth. Alternative clean technologies are not a pipe dream any more than putting a man on the moon was a pipe dream in the 1960’s. The biggest obstacle has been a lack of motivation on the part of our legislators but today Americans across the nation are demanding these technologies.
nuke is good, but i have a hard time seeing americans ever lettin gone be built in my lifetime. NIMBY rules for stupid folks, Now if we could give them a tax break for living in a NUKE ZONE? hum that might make a difference.
I am pro anything that makes me money. As long as it does not harm the dodo bird. (There's a joke in thar somewhere, find it). How's that for ethics? I will even make money on PBW shares, when I can steal them for the right price.