http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm

 

This constantly puzzles me. I was anticipating someone here making a better case than the green lobbyists I've come across.

 

My problem is that I've talked to, and been shown the numbers and assumptions of those in favour of nuclear power and you just can't do the numbers any other way. If you want to lower fossil fuel emissions while not sending the economy into three day weeks then nuclear is the only way. It's far from perfect, but in what weird alternate reality are we where we expect perfection? Green (alternative) power just does not add up.

What's wrong with the three day week? You still get two days for weekend, right? Sounds pretty snazzy.

 

Is that some sort of British saying?

how about taxing the richest 1 % who own 50 % of this world a bit more and putting the money into solar power research

 

or spending less money on weapons and military and spending that money on wind power research

how about taxing the richest 1 % who own 50 % of this world a bit more and putting the money into solar power research

 

or spending less money on weapons and military and spending that money on wind power research

As a bit of a side note, it's pretty sad that when I read this, little progress bars and words like "tech-level" popped into my head.

Nuclear energy is not without risks but can yield a great amount of power if the facility is properly maintained and kept in tiptop shape. Of course, when things go wrong things can really go wrong. Of course I have no problem with countries building nuclear power plants for producing energy for their people. Many countries have them and trying to put limits on other countries that don't seem to be a tactic to make sure those countries don't have an equal footing to those who do.

 

I also think there are alternatives to nuclear energy, but these alternatives are still pretty much in the early stages of development. Here in Iowa we are all a buzz with ethonal and wind power. Renewable energy is something all countries should look into and invest in.

Neuclear energy is 'green', provided you can dig a hole deep enough for the spent fuel rods.

Nuclear energy is not without risks but can yield a great amount of power if the facility is properly maintained and kept in tiptop shape. Of course, when things go wrong things can really go wrong. Of course I have no problem with countries building nuclear power plants for producing energy for their people. Many countries have them and trying to put limits on other countries that don't seem to be a tactic to make sure those countries don't have an equal footing to those who do.

 

I also think there are alternatives to nuclear energy, but these alternatives are still pretty much in the early stages of development. Here in Iowa we are all a buzz with ethonal and wind power. Renewable energy is something all countries should look into and invest in.

 

 

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

What drawbacks exactly, it's not like we are in danger of running out of holes in the ground.

 

Moreover the next generation fission reactors are expected to make much better use of the fissile material and might even be able to use what is discarded now as fuel,

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

 

Nope. What we need to do is create a cost effect transit for the nuclear waste and hurl it into the sun. Transport nuclear waste materials to an orbital platform thensend it into a trajectory that will make it impact into our sun where it will be burned away.

Nope. What we need to do is create a cost effect transit for the nuclear waste and hurl it into the sun. Transport nuclear waste materials to an orbital platform thensend it into a trajectory that will make it impact into our sun where it will be burned away.

Whatever happened to cost vs benefit analysis...

I think the benefit of getting nuclear waste off the planet will subvert any costs it might ensue.

Nuclear energy is not without risks but can yield a great amount of power if the facility is properly maintained and kept in tiptop shape. Of course, when things go wrong things can really go wrong. Of course I have no problem with countries building nuclear power plants for producing energy for their people. Many countries have them and trying to put limits on other countries that don't seem to be a tactic to make sure those countries don't have an equal footing to those who do.

 

I also think there are alternatives to nuclear energy, but these alternatives are still pretty much in the early stages of development. Here in Iowa we are all a buzz with ethonal and wind power. Renewable energy is something all countries should look into and invest in.

 

 

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

We (the human race) are about 10-20 years away from commercially-viable fusion power.

 

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

 

Nope. What we need to do is create a cost effect transit for the nuclear waste and hurl it into the sun. Transport nuclear waste materials to an orbital platform thensend it into a trajectory that will make it impact into our sun where it will be burned away.

It's a LOT less risky to put it in a subduction zone and let the Earth swallow it back down to(wards) the Mantle, where all the Earth's radioactive materials are, in situ.

 

Or, as has been elucidated before, the Australian continent (for one zone) has been stable -- for the past, oh, 400 million years or so -- and is a perfect place to build containment. Just build the price of containment into the cost of production, and the process will pay for itself.

Nuclear energy is not without risks but can yield a great amount of power if the facility is properly maintained and kept in tiptop shape. Of course, when things go wrong things can really go wrong. Of course I have no problem with countries building nuclear power plants for producing energy for their people. Many countries have them and trying to put limits on other countries that don't seem to be a tactic to make sure those countries don't have an equal footing to those who do.

 

I also think there are alternatives to nuclear energy, but these alternatives are still pretty much in the early stages of development. Here in Iowa we are all a buzz with ethonal and wind power. Renewable energy is something all countries should look into and invest in.

 

 

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

We (the human race) are about 10-20 years away from commercially-viable fusion power.

 

what about nuclear waste? there's still no way of disposing it, they just put it in underground vaults and hope it'll go away. out of sight out of mind indeed. nuclear power is just stupid, sure it's cheap but the drawbacks are huge. maybe not for us, but to future generations.

 

Nope. What we need to do is create a cost effect transit for the nuclear waste and hurl it into the sun. Transport nuclear waste materials to an orbital platform thensend it into a trajectory that will make it impact into our sun where it will be burned away.

It's a LOT less risky to put it in a subduction zone and let the Earth swallow it back down to(wards) the Mantle, where all the Earth's radioactive materials are, in situ.

 

Or, as has been elucidated before, the Australian continent (for one zone) has been stable -- for the past, oh, 400 million years or so -- and is a perfect place to build containment. Just build the price of containment into the cost of production, and the process will pay for itself.

 

 

Aha, so THAT's your plan, you filthy weasel! Mutant batsmen.

They could charge the ECB for visitation permission ...

Nuclear energy is not without risks but can yield a great amount of power if the facility is properly maintained and kept in tiptop shape.

 

The problem is that proper maintenance is a big expense. That's a huge incentive for slacking off... <_<

Edited February 16, 200718 yr by Lyric Suite

The latest generation of plants are almost (human) labour-free. (Yes, I know that sounds like "unsinkable", but I'm assuming you aren't going to sensationalize what I wrote, like the newspaper reporters did to the Titanic, when they were told that it was "virtually unsinkable". :D )

I'm for launching fancy missiles loaded with the stuff to the sun.

Can we launch them from your backyard ... y'know, in case they blow up on the launchpad?

Launch them from mine!

That won't help your batting.

Satelites are launched from sea platforms nowadays.

Satelites are launched from sea platforms nowadays.

 

Really?!

Ja rly. Discovery did an episode on an offshore rig whose platform unfolds for a launching site. They've successfully launched lots of satelites from that offshore platform since.

Ja rly. Discovery did an episode on an offshore rig whose platform unfolds for a launching site. They've successfully launched lots of satelites from that offshore platform since.

 

Cool!

Brits have nuclear power? Who gave it to them? Our friends shouldn't have such things.