Quote:
Originally Posted by rawlus
i realize nuclear is a source of energy, but there's the nasty side effects of disposal and whatnot. isn't that just a tradeoff for reduced carbon?
|
Not just "reduced carbon", but "zero carbon". Nuclear power generation is currently the only viable "base load" power generation technology that does not produce nasty greenhouse gases. You can't use such things as wind and solar power, because it's not always sunny or windy. Wave power is more reliable, but can only be used in a relatively few locations, as can such things as hydroelectric or geothermal generation too. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere close to a source of water for cooling.
I worked in the UK's nuclear power industry for many years, and I can tell you that waste disposal is a much over-rated "problem". The UK has been successfully reprocessing nuclear fuel for 50-odd years.
Quote:
|
since the vast amount of the world's energy consumption seems to me to be fossil-related - either oil or gas or NG or coal, i have a hard time seeing any super heavyweights coming into the ring to challenge any of them. nevermind the complications of cost and infrastructure that may make a switch impossible, even if there is a will to do so.
|
That's a matter of political will. France, for example, currently generates around 80% of its electricity from nuclear power stations; the UK around 30% (and we're about to start building a new generation of nuclear stations).
The role that government has to play is to educate the public that nuclear power stations are not the "bogey man" that many think they are, and that they can't "blow up" like atomic bombs.