Nuclear Power - yea or nay?

[NikolaiI]

Kilted is for it, I am against it. I wanted to create this thread so the discussion won't detract from the oil-spill thread. I don't think I'll really get into this one but I may read the posts if anyone takes up both sides.


I know of the range of projects and activities being carried out in attempts to find solutions to the dependence on fossil fuels (I studied a wide variety of them at college whilst gettting my environmental engineering tech) The problem is that nuclear is the most viable alternative, it is the sane sobre alternative and what we really should be doing. The problem is more one of scaremongering by various groups with different agendas which has people constantly worrying about the prospect of another chernobyl or about what happens if it leaks.

Where I live currently is about 50 km from a nuclear power plant and also a DGR (deep geologic repository) where nuclear waste from a large number of facilities throughout the continent are stored. There is no concern because correct management practices are being carried out an safety checks are in place. I have never seen even one letter to either of the local newspapers in town here about any resident worrying over nuclear, I do however see at least one letter a week by residents decrying the wind turbines that have been installed and the impact on human health from vibration and noise, not to mention the effect on local wildlife.


I honestly could not possibly disagree with you more. As I said before, what happens when you have nuclear power is that you have to take care of the waste for an indefinite amount of time - and that is no small thing. It will last thousands upon thousands of years. To assume it's an absolutely sure thing we can keep those containing facilities operating perfectly, for truly indefinite amount of time, (literally, thousands of years, unless I am quite wrong) is a pretty unsafe assumption. I hope you can see the logic in this.

Furthermore, the containing facilities would have to keep increasing, the more we use nuclear power, the more facilities we would have to maintain.

Please consider what is involved here - the time frames, of keeping these facilities going. It can't be left automatically. If it is left alone it will deconstruct. So, to increase the nuclear power is to bet on the odds - the odds that human society, whatever nation, will last and stay in good enough shape to run the darn things and keep them maintained, for thousands of years. Just think about the time frames involved. It's a lot longer than we might think!

All I can say, is that with all my intuition and understanding of life, and everything; and human existence; the nuclear waste will outlive us. 2,000 years alone is a terribly long time to betting on things with such serious consequences.

If we increase nuclear power, it is nearly inevitable it will fail. I am not being pessmistic but realistic about the simple facts of it. Such a volatile and dangerous substance, which must be kept safe by maintenance for literally thousands of years... it's just such a bad idea... I don't know how to explain this and I doubt I got through... I'm not too worried anyway...

Perhaps this should be another thread topic... in fact that would be a good idea.

[Dodo25]

I am for the building of more nuclear power plants, because all sums considered, they seem to be the most cost-effective way to generate electricity. Admittedly, they have some big disadvantages, that's why I don't consider the energy problem to be solved by just building lots of these power plants. Actually, I think of this period as a period of transition. Money and funds should go into developing new technologies, but not into actually large-scale building them (because as of now, all suggestions are too expensive and wouldn't work). Prototypes should be built, and research should be done, so that in the future, we will find a lasting solution to our energy problem.

A hopeful candidate is the project ITER that is being built in France at the moment. Here's their website for the ones interested: http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

Anyway, because I haven't heard of an available alternative better than nuclear power plants, I am in favor of building more of them. At least for the next 50 years or so, and when we have found the alternative, we can slowly shut them down one by one and replace them by the new energy source.

Now why do I think that nuclear power plants are the best we have right now?

CO2 emissions: Very low. Some CO2 is emitted from digging out uranium, and some from building the power plants, but altogether, the outcome is negligible.

Effectivity: Awesome compared to what else is around.

Landscape: There is worse, they don't need too much space. And actually, I like the chimneys with the smoke, they're cool.

Pollution and Environment: Not bad either. Some rivers are suffering, but the newer plants often have to pass severe restrictions, hence they are pretty 'green'.

Wastes: So here's the most controversial issue. First of all, there had been some terrible handling of the wastes in the last millennium. Lots of countries just dropped the stuff into the oceans. Russia had accidents (more than just Tshernobyl) but kept quiet about them behind the Iron Curtain and sometimes didn't even evacuate the population of the damaged areas.

However, that's history. What matters now is how it's being done today. The newest generation of plants produces less wastes, a lot of the material of the fuel rods is recycled. The safety precautions of the power plants are enormous. Actually I just visited one a couple of days ago, it was pretty cool.

Still, there is waste. And the situation with it is even much worse than the OP described in his post. The most dangerous waste remains dangerous for hundred thousands of years.

The thing is though, that the wastes are soon being gathered (the ones that are in 'transional bearings') and will over the next years be put in final bearings. These final bearings are pretty save. The waste is fused into glass. Then in metal containers, multiple layers. The whole stuff is then being put into underground tunnel systems, surrounded by a stable geology (clay and then stable rock).

Information about the location of these final bearings will be available in data bases all around the world. Even if nations collapse, the information might survive somewhere else. If not, pictographs are hammered into stone to prevent future civilizations from digging where the waste lies. And anyway, if all information is lost, would there really be the technology left to dig down 400-1000 metres into solid rock (what for anyway?) and open steel containers?

Additionally, why would we as a civilization even live for so long? I for one find it extremely improbable that humanity even survives another millennia. What might survive is our robot descendants, but they wouldn't be bothered by radioactivity anyway.

[Taliesin]

I'm very strongly in favour of nuclear energy, particularly because I feel that it is sort of a use-nuclear-energy-massively or die-off-as-a-civilization scenario that we are facing right now.
Plus, as mentioned, the only real problem with nuclear right now is the waste (that, and the fact that if we kept on using the same technology that we mostly use right now, we would run out of uranium rather soon - however, there are other, much more efficient solutions using which we could have nuclear energy for thousands of years)
Concerning the wastes, you're right, it is a problem, however, I think that the probability of us developing technologies (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910743955&db=all) that help us deal with them, is very high. We actually have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing) some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation) even right now.

[OrphanPip]

Increasing nuclear power use exponentially isn't really viable, but more nuclear power could help with the green house gas problem.

Although, what I think is a more viable solution to environmental problem is a multifaceted approach. We have to look for new ways of producing energy at the same time as we work on making current methods more efficient.

It's not much of an issue here in Quebec though, our province is completely powered by hydroelectricity.

[Emil Miller]

Some years ago I was against an expansion of nuclear power for reasons given in other posts on this subject. The Russian experience of Tchernobyl and the U.S Three Mile Island episode were both due to human error which, as we all know, is hardly an unusual occurrence. In the absence of alternatives to fossil fuels, which are massively polluting the Earth's atmosphere, it is the only viable alternative even allowing for the dangers inherent in its use.
With regard to the nuclear waste I don't see why it couldn't be fired into space out of harm's way.

[Niamh]

The topic of nuclear power is probably the only topic myself and kilted disagree on. I am completely against nuclear power. Sellafield is the reason i'm so against it. Sellafield had a major effect on part of the east coast of Ireland where there was an increase in children being born with disablities, high cancer rates and other such issues, mainly in the Co. Louth area of the country.

[Hurricane]

I'm very much in favor of using more nuclear energy, but not as an exclusive energy source.
The waste issue is the most prevelant one, but there are ways to recycle much of the matter and I have confidence in upcoming solutions.
With regards to most countries, I'm not super worried about accidents, provided a serious enough effort is taken to ensure professionalism and iron out errors. It can be done: the US Navy's been nuclear for fifty years with no ships lost due to an accident related to the power plant, or any nuclear incidents that I'm aware of.
I would be worried if more countries without rigorous standards get into the nuclear energy game (see: Chernobyl) and don't take the potential dangers seriously.
Maybe only allow nuclear engineers who've been through a rigorous, international training program to establish/run nuclear plants? I don't know about that, but I see no reason why countries that establish/enforce good safety standards can't set up nuclear plants.

[OrphanPip]

The other problem is the use of reactors for producing weaponized plutonium. Canada provided India with nuclear reactors with the express condition they not be used for producing weapons, and then Indian went and used them to produce nuclear weapons. It's kind of a crapshoot you can't keep the technology out of the hands of everyone forever.

[Taliesin]

Some years ago I was against an expansion of nuclear power for reasons given in other posts on this subject. The Russian experience of Tchernobyl and the U.S Three Mile Island episode were both due to human error which, as we all know, is hardly an unusual occurrence. In the absence of alternatives to fossil fuels, which are massively polluting the Earth's atmosphere, it is the only viable alternative even allowing for the dangers inherent in its use.
With regard to the nuclear waste I don't see why it couldn't be fired into space out of harm's way.

The probability of an accident happening during a space launch is about 1% which is absolutely too high. The thing you put inside the reactor isn't actually so lethal, you could hold it in your hand - however, the wastes are things that will kill you stone dead if you're a metre away from it - so you need to be very careful. I think that currently, the most unsafe reactors have a core damage probability of about 1*10^-5 per year per reactor (the ones they are starting to do now have about 1*10^-8 or 1*10^-7 per year per factory).

Concerning Chernobyl - the main reason for the accident wasn't actually human error (it was also human error, though, there was a breakdown of communication, also leaving junior engineers with less experience to carry out an experiment) the main reason was that the reactor design had some very serious flaws. They don't allow to construct anything like that anymore and the safety standards that they require nowadays are very high.

If you're interested, you can also have a look at the IEAE safety standards. (http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/default.htm)

[NikolaiI]

Wastes: So here's the most controversial issue. First of all, there had been some terrible handling of the wastes in the last millennium. Lots of countries just dropped the stuff into the oceans. Russia had accidents (more than just Tshernobyl) but kept quiet about them behind the Iron Curtain and sometimes didn't even evacuate the population of the damaged areas.

However, that's history. What matters now is how it's being done today. The newest generation of plants produces less wastes, a lot of the material of the fuel rods is recycled. The safety precautions of the power plants are enormous. Actually I just visited one a couple of days ago, it was pretty cool.

Still, there is waste. And the situation with it is even much worse than the OP described in his post. The most dangerous waste remains dangerous for hundred thousands of years.

The thing is though, that the wastes are soon being gathered (the ones that are in 'transional bearings') and will over the next years be put in final bearings. These final bearings are pretty save. The waste is fused into glass. Then in metal containers, multiple layers. The whole stuff is then being put into underground tunnel systems, surrounded by a stable geology (clay and then stable rock).

Information about the location of these final bearings will be available in data bases all around the world. Even if nations collapse, the information might survive somewhere else. If not, pictographs are hammered into stone to prevent future civilizations from digging where the waste lies. And anyway, if all information is lost, would there really be the technology left teo dig down 400-1000 metres into solid rock (what for anyway?) and open steel containers?

Additionally, why would we as a civilization even live for so long? I for one find it extremely improbable that humanity even survives another millennia. What might survive is our robot descendants, but they wouldn't be bothered by radioactivity anyway.

I see your point - but I would ask, have they done all this yet? You say they are soon being gathered, and they will do this, and will do that. I hope they do.

[Haunted]

Nuclear energy is so last century. I can bet on it that the trend will be toward localized power source. Some day each house/building will be solar powered and/or equipped with geothermal electricity. They are also talking about wind energy and threatened to build a field of ugly windmills in the ocean.... Clean natural energy is the way to go in the new age of environmentalism.

[BienvenuJDC]

There are certain mysteries left to be unlocked. There are the giant redwoods that are able to carry water from the ground to the very top of the tree. But we have NO IDEA how the tree does it. If we can unlock even these mysteries, we will have new hydraulic means of producing energy.

Of course most energy sources are ultimately solar....even coal and oil are energy sources that originated from the sun. But how do we harness them?

Until then...it's either fossil fuels, nuclear, AND a combination of wind/water/solar and the such. Each has their problems, and the arguments will continue in our societies forever.

[Virgil]

Nothing wrong with it. In fact it's used all over Europe. Three mile island showed you could have a human failure and limit the problem. In fact I've never seen any ramifications from three mile island. Completely blown out of proportion by whacky enviromentalists.


In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Even the human error problem that occured would be resolved today with computer programed fail safes. Three mile island is not an example of nuclear power gone wrong.

Chernobyl is another story, a story of poorly funded, poorly designed, poorly trained facility. And even there with all the poorly designed, poorly funded facilities in the Soviet union, they had only one incident. I think today even that wouldn't be an issue.

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Eventually when oil does run out in three hundred or more years, nuclear is all we will really have.

[BienvenuJDC]

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Eventually when oil does run out in three hundred or more years, nuclear is all we will really have.

Virgil...no one considered my question from earlier about how long it truly takes oil to form. Do you have any idea how long this process takes? I know that in school they taught us that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but since I have seen the evidence that indicates that it happens in a matter of decades with the right conditions. Maybe oil is being produces much more quickly than originally thought.

[Virgil]

Virgil...no one considered my question from earlier about how long it truly takes oil to form. Do you have any idea how long this process takes? I know that in school they taught us that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but since I have seen the evidence that indicates that it happens in a matter of decades with the right conditions. Maybe oil is being produces much more quickly than originally thought.

I have no idea actually. That's a good question. It does seem we stumble on it all over the world. I don't think there is a region in the world that doesn't have oil.

[OrphanPip]

It's certainly not being produced in hundreds of years at least, or else medieval cemeteries would be prime drilling ground.

The problem with nuclear energy is that uranium won't last forever either. We're better off spreading our resources out, having some nuclear and some fossil fuel dependent energy production.

With the number of coal burning plants out there today, cleaner burning methods actually will help significantly reduce emissions. Better wind, solar, and geothermal energy is also a must. Hydroelectricity is currently viable, but unfortunately there aren't enough large enough rivers to cover everyone. At least, we can be sure that wind, geothermal and solar energy will be viable over the long term.

[NikolaiI]

Nothing wrong with it. In fact it's used all over Europe. Three mile island showed you could have a human failure and limit the problem. In fact I've never seen any ramifications from three mile island. Completely blown out of proportion by whacky enviromentalists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Even the human error problem that occured would be resolved today with computer programed fail safes. Three mile island is not an example of nuclear power gone wrong.

Chernobyl is another story, a story of poorly funded, poorly designed, poorly trained facility. And even there with all the poorly designed, poorly funded facilities in the Soviet union, they had only one incident. I think today even that wouldn't be an issue.

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Eventually when oil does run out in three hundred or more years, nuclear is all we will really have.



Yeah, you and others chalk every catastrophe, such as Chernobyl and others, up to human failure. But let's say every system is perfect. I'll grant that because the next part of my reasoning is slam-dunk. Our system is perfect - now. But the vitally important thing you so many others are over-looking is the time frame. It's not just that we have to contain it now, but we have to do so for literally thousands upon thousands of years. And a single thousand years contains so many changes.

It is so painfully obvious to me that changes in human society and nations are very, very common. It happens all the time. If anyone thinks we can maintain those things for that long, I can't imagine how. And yet you and Kilted and Tal believe in it wholeheartedly, which I cannot fathom.


Buildings get abandoned. Cities get abandoned. Nations crumble. And when they do, nuclear waste will spill. If we do more of it.

My main reasoning is that: nothing lasts forever, least of all the things we humans make.

[Virgil]

It's certainly not being produced in hundreds of years at least, or else medieval cemeteries would be prime drilling ground.

The problem with nuclear energy is that uranium won't last forever either. We're better off spreading our resources out, having some nuclear and some fossil fuel dependent energy production.

With the number of coal burning plants out there today, cleaner burning methods actually will help significantly reduce emissions. Better wind, solar, and geothermal energy is also a must. Hydroelectricity is currently viable, but unfortunately there aren't enough large enough rivers to cover everyone. At least, we can be sure that wind, geothermal and solar energy will be viable over the long term.

Sure I agree we should be looking at all sources. I always have a problem with people who say one energy source will eventually run out so we better switch. When an energy source runs out (and oil is far from running out) than it will be time to switch. When an energy source begins to run out the economics of supply and demand will cause alternative sources to be more cost effective. But why should we switch to alternative sources when currently they are not as cost effective as oil? Why would you want to intentionally pay more and actually artificially support something not cost effective? I've never understood the logic, except that it comes from people who don't pay bills. Why would someone intentionally double their heating and electric bills when they don't have to?


Yeah, you and others chalk every catastrophe, such as Chernobyl and others, up to human failure. But let's say every system is perfect. I'll grant that because the next part of my reasoning is slam-dunk. Our system is perfect - now. But the vitally important thing you so many others are over-looking is the time frame. It's not just that we have to contain it now, but we have to do so for literally thousands upon thousands of years. And a single thousand years contains so many changes.

It is so painfully obvious to me that changes in human society and nations are very, very common. It happens all the time. If anyone thinks we can maintain those things for that long, I can't imagine how. And yet you and Kilted and Tal believe in it wholeheartedly, which I cannot fathom.


Buildings get abandoned. Cities get abandoned. Nations crumble. And when they do, nuclear waste will spill. If we do more of it.

That's a good point, but I believe nuclear waste is disposed as it's used. And no system is perfect, but I refuse to want to live like a primitive. Ultimately we take risks and engineer the risks to be minimal.

[NikolaiI]

Sure I agree we should be looking at all sources. I always have a problem with people who say one energy source will eventually run out so we better switch. When an energy source runs out (and oil is far from running out) than it will be time to switch. When an energy source begins to run out the economics of supply and demand will cause alternative sources to be more cost effective. But why should we switch to alternative sources when currently they are not as cost effective as oil? Why would you want to intentionally pay more and actually artificially support something not cost effective? I've never understood the logic, except that it comes from people who don't pay bills. Why would someone intentionally double their heating and electric bills when they don't have to?

One reason is conservation - oil is a miracle energy, truly. Shouldn't we save the best for last?

[Gladys]

Interesting are Generation IV reactors (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor) with these advantages:


* Nuclear waste that lasts decades instead of millennia.
* 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel.
* The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity.
* Access to an almost limitless source of raw fuel.


They are said to be about two decades away but, like the fusion reactor, may fail to deliver on technical or cost grounds.

How soon can we expect the first terrorist-owned nuclear weapon and what impact will this development have on nuclear power world-wide?

[OrphanPip]

That depends on who you want to call a terrorist, since it is most often politically defined.

[Lokasenna]

It's true that nuclear power can be seen as something of a short term solution, but I'm not sure that's a problem. I suspect that in 150 years or so, the human race will have developed something sustainable and clean (likely solar based, if I'm any judge), but in the meantime I think nuclear presents us with the best pay-off. The waste product is unpleasant stuff, but a relatively small amount of it is generated for large gain in energy. A handful of nuclear power plants could service most of the UK's needs for the time it would take to sort out an alternative, and I think the long term effects will be better than relying on fossil fuels for the next century or so.

Also, I absolutely abhor those wretched windmill things! They're a blight on some of the country's most beautiful spaces - that's true pollution, in my opinion. Surely half a dozen power plants are better than covering vast swathes of nature in those things?

[Virgil]

Also, I absolutely abhor those wretched windmill things! They're a blight on some of the country's most beautiful spaces - that's true pollution, in my opinion. Surely half a dozen power plants are better than covering vast swathes of nature in those things?

Hear, hear! I completely agree, not to mention the bird life they kill.

[Cunninglinguist]

Hear, hear! I completely agree, not to mention the bird life they kill.

I think they're also notorious for cutting cows in half.

[Taliesin]

Sure I agree we should be looking at all sources. I always have a problem with people who say one energy source will eventually run out so we better switch. When an energy source runs out (and oil is far from running out) than it will be time to switch. When an energy source begins to run out the economics of supply and demand will cause alternative sources to be more cost effective. But why should we switch to alternative sources when currently they are not as cost effective as oil? Why would you want to intentionally pay more and actually artificially support something not cost effective? I've never understood the logic, except that it comes from people who don't pay bills. Why would someone intentionally double their heating and electric bills when they don't have to?





The thing with the transition from oil to nuclear is that nuclear plants take an awfully long time to construct - about 10-15 years from the start of planning and analysis to actually getting power from it. So if it happens that the oil runs out too rapidly, we just can't say - oh, looks like the oil is too expensive, I'll just switch to nuclear now - there is quite a long period of waiting. You just can't expect the market to solve problems like that, you need to think forward and make plans.

Concerning natural uranium resources - the most pessimistic scenarios don't give much time but also don't consider that a)the estimates of the uranium reserves are actually "estimates of uranium reserves that are economical to use, according to the current energy situation". If the price went up sufficiently, then the amount of economically usable uranium would also go up.
b) breeder reactors are possible - they need 30 times less uranium for the same energy as the usual converter reactors. We have the technology right now, and a number have been built, but since breeder reactors are more expensive to build and operate than the usual converter reactors, they aren't economically efficient nowadays, however. I personally think that in the long-term prospect, starting to build breeder reactors despite them not being economically competitive now would be a wise step, but hey, that's the market economy to you.
c)It's possible to reprocess used nuclear fuel. This would also increase the possible resources a lot, however, this is one of the most problematic areas here. There are only two commercial reprocessing factories nowadays, and they really are a disgrace to the nuclear energy industry - they are the places that pollute the environment most, radioactively speaking. Sellafield that Niamh mentioned is one of them. However, I think that it is possible to develop technologies that deal with the problem more efficiently and that we shouldn't throw the baby (nuclear energy) out with the bathwater (chemical nuclear reprocessing a la Sellafield).
d) thorium. There's quite a lot of the stuff, more that uranium even, if I remember correctly. India is thinking about building a lot of thorium reactors, since they do have a lot of the stuff. And it's also possible to build thorium-based breeder reactors etc.

So, in general, we do have nuclear resources for quite some time. The main problem with this IMO is reasoning a la - well, I do have food right now, why should I plant some? I'll plant something when I run out of my food resources.

[Virgil]

Good points Tal. The finer economic points are complex. I'm not in that business to understand the complexity. I didn't realize it actually takes that long to get a nuclear plant up and running.

[MarkBastable]

Also, I absolutely abhor those wretched windmill things! They're a blight on some of the country's most beautiful spaces - that's true pollution, in my opinion. Surely half a dozen power plants are better than covering vast swathes of nature in those things?

I'm sure that people said the same about corn-grinding windmills, once. These days the remaining ones are preserved all over Europe as an intrinsic and valuable part of the landscape.

Me, I'd go for wave power. Much more economical, much less visible and absolutely sustainable, as long as the moon hangs around.

[BienvenuJDC]

MarkB...I've never given it serious consideration before, but has there been much research in harnessing the tides and/or ocean currents?

Anyone?

[Virgil]

I have heard of it. I have never heard it mentioned as a viable energy source. It doesn't strike me as very efficient (mainly because of the directionality variations of waves and water motion in general), but who knows. Here's a nice write up on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

[Niamh]

I've no problem with wind farms. I think they look interesting. A local park here in Dublin has a small wind farm. Its a modern park and the turbines were integrated to look like a feature in the park rather than just a wind farm and it looks great!

We have had housing developements constructed with solar panelled roofs. Ireland is currently mad for "green" energy projects! :)


Me, I'd go for wave power. Much more economical, much less visible and absolutely sustainable, as long as the moon hangs around.

I think there is a project to construct a large metal grid that will be located in the bottom of the irish sea to conduct electricity from wave motion. I was only mentioning it to Kilted yesterday. Being an enviornmental engineer previously he's facinated by renewable energy... and nuclear of course...

[JuniperWoolf]

likely solar based, if I'm any judge

Yeah, my physics friends and instructors all think that solar is going to be the next big thing.

[Niamh]

Solar cant work globally. The solar homes here in Ireland have to have two forms of energy. Why? because there just isnt enough exposed sunshine to properly generate enough electricity to sustain a single property properly. Its great technology, but in countries with longer dark hours and denser cloud coverage, it just isnt feasible, hence why countries like Ireland, look to other forms of renewable energy that is feasible for our environment, like wind farms or, being an island, wave power.

[Nightshade]

And as it stands now Solar panels do not work in very hot countries like say Egypt very well because the heat damages them. Not to mention the sand scartching them.
I am not sure on my stand on nuclear energy, its seems risky at best although at the moment probably the most feasible.
The problem is if we all go for nuclear there will not be much incentive to look for a better energy source.
Wouldn't it be grand if we could convert noise pollution into energy, and human body heat.., as in the excess But then we would all be part of the machine.

[Shalot]

Wouldn't it be grand if we could convert noise pollution into energy, and human body heat.., as in the excess But then we would all be part of the machine.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get a bunch of obese American kids off their X-boxes and put them on exercise bikes that were hooked to some turbine thing that could extract that energy from their peddling and convert it to electricity. We could kill two birds with one stone - offset diabetes and have another method of power production. but then what would we do when we ran out of fat kids.

Actually, the place I work for is pro-nuclear power I think. I watched an excerpt of our CEO discussing the reprocessing of that spent fuel. But when I voted, I put that I was unsure because I don't really know ALL the details about it. I like the idea of the continued search for that perfect, clean, safe energysource.