Nuclear Power - The Future?
What the hell is the fossil fuel alternative?
I've been thinking about this for some time and I believe that Nuclear Power is the way to go but there are some serious issues. I believe that they are not so serious anymore.
I've been running this by a few friends lately and they agree.
What are the issues?
1. Another Chernobyl. Technology has come a long way since then and, lets face it, the old Russian technology and methodology was never really up to sratch. There are many sucessful power plants around the world.
2. Nuclear waste. That is just soooo easy to solve. Firstly realize that the amount of waste per year per power plant is just so small. I have read figures of one plant producing less than a shoe box of waste per year. Let's say we have 10 x 200 litre drums of waste per year in the world. Why can't we just put it put it all into a rocket and point it to the sun. It will simply burn out long before it gets anywhere near it's destination and dissipate at tiny concentration levels into the universe.
3. Terrorists. Sure the plants are a target but put them out of harms way. Bury them into the ground or a hillside. Bombs don't penetrate very deep at all if they just hit the surface of the ground. They really need something serious like a nuclear bomb to penetrate much more than 6 metres deep. If they have a nuclear bomb then why waste it on a nuclear power station, better to just go straight for down town New York.
Am I wrong? What am I missing? Please comment.
Below is an article from a recent "The Bulletin with Newsweek". It seems that Australia is getting keen on the idea also.
3 comments:
As an American nuclear power worker I can tell you that 1) western reactors tend to be run a lot differently (and better) than Soviet bloc units and sometimes are a different design as well. (Chernobyl is exclusively a Soviet design). 2) Regarding waste disposal, space disposal poses a lot of risks due to rocket explosions. Geological disposal is likely less risky. (Nothing is without some risk). One newer proposal I haven't looked at closely is to drop large "darts" filled with waste into the middle of the ocean floor, where they will imbed themselves deep in the mud of the very stable ocean plate. 3) Regarding terrorists, its hard to do much more to a nuclear unit than shut it down, even if you get inside.
I address the Chernobyl and terrorism aspects in some detail in my novel "Rad Decision", which is available online at no cost to readers. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.
(If you read it and like it, please pass the word.)
James Aach
I agree with you Alby, and I also like the comments from James. It is the way of the present and most definatly the future. Green do-gooders can stick those "wind farms" etc. where the sun don't shine but the wind continues to blow.
This is a comment that was posted on another blog that I (Albyxx) was running for a while so here it is:
From: amc
Website: http://fromthegonzo.wordpress.com/
Email: irishmacalicious@yahoo.com
I agree. But in the U.S. shoddy maintenance practices are scaring people away from a viable alternative to fossil fuels. I have covered the subject in some depth at From the Gonzo
As well, I have taken the time to compile the last several years of Nuclear emergencies in the U.S. These incidents are based on Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that are released in the event of a so called nuclear emergency. Anyway, just thought I would point it out.
And Aach is righta bout the difference in reactors between the West and the former Soviet Bloc, I read his novel. It's really good, from another writer's point of view anyway, at least.
Dont know about the ocean waste disposal idea. Seems like an inherently bad one, especially considering the force with which an underwater fault slipped in the Sumatra earthquake that killed over 100,000 in its ensuing tsunami. I agree that shooting it into space is way too scary. Rockets blow up all the time before reaching orbit. Bad idea.
Post a Comment