I believe we'll need nuclear fusion power systems for quite a while.
And I think there's been considerable advance in our ability to make
them safe and much, much more efficient in their power output per unit
of radioactive fuel used.
Recent dual source reactors combine traditional nuclear reactors, run
sub-critical, with a second source, generally a linear accelerator
beam. This considerably increases safety. These critters also use a
stunt of using spent nuclear "waste" as a jacket for the fission
chamber, increasing neutron production.
This is just one of many improvements in fission plant design, many of
which do indeed use prior "waste" materials in innovative ways.
I've read that coal plants actually produce more radioactive
byproducts than nuclear plants do. Yet we hear little concern about
their radioactivity, only their pollution.
Politics also play a part. Breeder reactors are considered dangerous
due to producing waste that can be used in bombs. So we decide to be
less efficient with more traditional systems in order to be "safer".
I'd sure like better science and less emotion in the matter. If I
were told I had to have a power plant next door, I'd prefer a nuke.
-- Owen
On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
I'm curious why you think our future energy needs can be met without
nuclear energy. Do you have any references to forecast energy
budgets for the US which define energy usage in coming decades, and
the corresponding energy sources and delivery infrastructures for
meeting those demands?
It's one thing to say "I don't like nukes," but another thing
entirely to claim that US energy requirements can be met without
fission nuclear power sources. Some justification for your
position, please?
--Doug
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, peggy miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was
sorry to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that
we can proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold
fusion, which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar,
geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not
possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on
Capitol Hill about the potential threats of nuclear fission power
plants, the inevitable error of human management, and the inability
to protect the toxics from leakage over their 500 million year life
span. These systems remain of a similar threat today, with toxic
wastes still unresolved, and meltdown capabilities remaining. Such
solutions therefore should not be part of the equation in my opinion.
But wanted you to see the link, whatever you think on the subject.
Peggy Miller
Highland Winds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html?gclid=COmjvfGV85kCFQ6jagod1lm-Qw
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
