Evidence of sea level rise on the Eastern coast of U.S.

Ambrosia said:

As far as nuclear goes--just say no.

Click to expand...

...why?

Imagine if we had the same reaction to any other technology as we do with nuclear power. We'd never build computers again because one run by a moron with no firewall and a huge porn addition got a blue screen of death.

To be fair, a computer that blue screens is less scary than a nuclear power plant - but that just means we need to apply our cleverness more to devise ways to take advantage of a stupidly useful power source.

And if you don't think it can be done, check out France. They've been exporting power for decades...

Zoombie said:

...why? ...

Click to expand...

Because the problem with current fission nuclear energy technology is that the consequences of even one serious mishap are really really scary. And we humans are infinitely capable of screwing up anything. Three Mile Island we escaped a huge catastrophe by seconds, as far as I can tell. Chernobyl, well that happened in the Ukraine, and who gives a rats, except the Russians. Fukishima, we still ain't got a cllue how bad that really is, and nobody will telll us.

If something on the order of Chernobyl or Fukushima had happend in Pennsylvania, where the Three Mile Island incident occurred, Philadelphia and New York City would have been evacuated. And, yes, I know that all three of these incidents had individual circumstances that aren't comparable. But . . .

Oh, yeah, and nobody knows how to deal with the highly radioactive waste products from those facilities.

Other than that, it's great. I doesn't produce carbon emissions. Whoopee.

caw

What about thorium fuel recycling? Pebble bed reactors?

I mean, I'm no expert, but thorium is both more plentiful (three to four times more plentiful than uranium), can't be used for nuclear weapons, produces roughly the same amount of power, and can be recycled into future reactors (thus, reducing or eliminating the dangers of waste storage, as there is less waste.)

Also, pebble bed reactors (which are merely one of many different theoretical ideas about 4th generation reactors - Three Mile and Chernobyl were...2nd generation reactors, I believe) are designed so that they cannot melt down. Their design is such that they naturally cool themselves (without needing cooling systems, which can fail.)

Of course, both of these methods have not fully been researched - we have no actual pebble bed reactors, and as far as I can tell, we have no thorium fuel recycling systems...which may mean that they will have problems that are just as serious as modern reactors. But they may also be the safer, cheaper, cleaner technologies that we could use to power the world without choking it in carbon.

I'm not saying we should build a load of nuclear reactors willy nilly and damn the consequences.

I'm saying we should build better reactors. We should find ways to recycle spent fuel rods. Which, by the way, we can do while ALSO studying better solar power plant technologies, better solar panels, ways to sequester carbon...

I can't resist asking, Zoombie - how many deaths as a result of nuclear power would make it "not worth it"?

(I am pro-nuclear, mind you. I just find your shifted priorities highly amusing when it involves way-cool high-tech stuff that could maybe someday power a giant robot.)