Nuclear Energy

I was thinking that oil is a limited commodity and we will eventually run out of the stuff which means that we are going to have to find an energy replacement for it or we are going to have to learn to conserve at a massive scale. I'm a big fan of solar, tidal, and wind power but I don't think we're going to be able to harness enough of it to completely fill the gap.

What are your thoughts on Nuclear Energy?

For it!

Quote :

What are your thoughts on Nuclear Energy?

Water and Wind and Earth power are good sources of energy, but strictly limited to a few places of practical application.

Solar is theoretically unlimited, but our current conversion technology is very inefficient. A break-through in storage capacity will be necessary. One of the best ways to capture and store solar energy is to grow and burn biofuels, then recycle the carbon*.

At the moment, the only practical large-scale replacement for fossil fuels seems to be fissile fuels. The ability to produce mass quantities of power has been proven. The ability to safely produce that power has also been proven. But the ability to safely dispose of the left-overs has not been proven.

Until nuclear fusion processes are perfected, we will always face the environmental and political hazards of radioactive waste. Hiding it in the ground, or ocean, or space is a short-term, desperate solution. The only long-term, sustainable solution I see is to turn the "waste" into "raw material" for another, cleaner process, such as nuclear fusion.

With oil supplies dwindling and rising in cost, and coal-burning producing its own radioactive waste (ash), I don't see any viable alternative to Nuclear fission as the energy source of the near future. Europe is way ahead of us in switching from carbon fuels to nuclear fuels. So I say go for it. But, just to be safe, emergency preparations for the China Syndrome should be included in FEMAs disaster plans.


* Suggestions for carbon recycling :

1> Capture the CO2 from smokestacks and convert it into carbonated water for soft drinks. Billions of Cokes consumed annually should absorb a lot of carbon. Just don't tell the consumers where it came from.

2> Capture the CO2 from smokestacks and pump it into enclosed greenhouses to simulate the Earth's steam-bath atmosphere during the Jurassic era of gigantic plants and animals.

I'm cool with Nuclear energy. The small reactors they can build now are quite safe.

Jury's still out for me.

I live about 50 miles from the Palo Verde Nuclear plant. It seems safe. And, when you can glow in the dark, you don't need night lights!



No, really, it is safe but the disposal issue is one that needs more attention.

Solar seems the logical choice in an area such as this, where the sun shines 360 days a year, but it is not efficient enough to meet the needs of a populace that relies on air conditioning for better than half the year.

If we are going to power our vehicles with electricity in the near future, we will need a reliable source of electricity - available day and night, whether it's sunny or raining and even when the wind isn't blowing.

Solar, wind and hydrothermal are all interesting prospects for increasing the supply, but all are insufficient as a primary power source.

Go nuclear! (for now).

I remember reading something about the Chernobyl disaster. Apparently for a few years after the accident all the trees within a half mile radius absorbed so much radiation that they would actually glow in the dark at night.

They eventually died out and have since been replaced by new trees that have grown up were they once stood.