Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs.

[Picard]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Quite an interesting read.

 

[Archer]

If you like keeping your blinkers on, then it could be interesting. If not, the obvious omissions and poor assumptions make the author look very biased.

 

[Nive~k]

i remember i watched a discovery program a few yrs ago, about having enuf h3 on the moon which wud satisfy our needs for a 1000yrs

 

[Picard]

If you like keeping your blinkers on, then it could be interesting. If not, the obvious omissions and poor assumptions make the author look very biased.

Even if omissions and poor assumptions were made and even if the author is biased ... the likelyhood that the problems will be greater than we currently know is better than not.

 

[Archer]

Even if omissions and poor assumptions were made and even if the author is biased ... the likelyhood that the problems will be greater than we currently know is better than not.

Look, no matter what we're screwed
Coal = major pollution all the time, not much coal left
Nuclear fission = radioactive waste, small potential for major disasters
Renewable = stuffs up local ecosystems (usually hydro), not reliable (solar/wind), etc

But the picture that the author tries to paint is of nuclear being this hopeless wasteland, which it is definately not. Take the following for example
There is the possiblily of recycling nuclear waste, which means less radioactive waste
Thorium can be used which is much more abundant than uranium, is cleaner, and cant be used for weapons
There are new types of reactors which dont make the facilities as radioactive during use
Fusion reactors are potentially 100x more powerful, use less fuel, have 0% risk of a major disaster and have a near limitless fuel source.

All those things, and many many more, were conveniently overlooked. So no, the problems are not "highly likely to be greater than they are now" for nuclear. Go read up and inform yourself before agreeing with someone who is so clearly biased its not even funny

 

[murraybiscuit]

/snip

agreed. he's making projections based on old technology and the assumption that improvements won't happen.
just read through the comments at the bottom of the article, they go into a bit more detail around what archer's stated.

 

[Picard]

I'm honest here (no sarcasm). You guys seem pretty knowledgable. Maybe you should write to the editors of Physorg and ask to join their editorial board (if they have one).

 

[zippy]

agreed. he's making projections based on old technology and the assumption that improvements won't happen.
just read through the comments at the bottom of the article, they go into a bit more detail around what archer's stated.

I doubt nuclear power is affordable for most of the worlds population, so in that sense he is correct, but it doesn't have to be in use in every economy at the same time. By having the major economies use nuclear power more, it reduces the demand on fossil fuels which makes fossil fuel power more affordable for emerging economies. The downside is that it may also reduce investment in fossil fuel. Using fossil fuels doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's how you use it and handle the emission, which will increase cost, but then no choices are easy

 

[K3NS31]

I doubt nuclear power is affordable for most of the worlds population, so in that sense he is correct, but it doesn't have to be in use in every economy at the same time. By having the major economies use nuclear power more, it reduces the demand on fossil fuels which makes fossil fuel power more affordable for emerging economies. The downside is that it may also reduce investment in fossil fuel. Using fossil fuels doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's how you use it and handle the emission, which will increase cost, but then no choices are easy

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Nuclear power gives you the most for what you put in, and is considered to be the best option (currently) for developing nations (like ours) to ever catch up to the first world.