Standing Bear wrote:
For nuclear power, everybody on this forum knows by now that I am a blunt and outspoken advocate for all things nuclear . . .
As such, you would be more credible if you would acknowledge that nuclear power has significant drawbacks and dangers. If we build thousands of new reactors, it seems likely there will be several more catastrophic accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. (Three Mile Island was a financial disaster and it came close to being a physical disaster as well.)
You are enthusiastic about fission. I support it reluctantly, because I think it is the least dangerous choice.
for the simple and single minded reason that it is the only power that we have right now whether fission or fusion cold or hot that we can take to space and have it with us to use.
When I was researching food factories, the people I spoke to at NASA about growing food aboard spaceships all agreed that nuclear fission is the only practical energy source for a long-range, long duration manned space exploration. Unfortunately, I think it would be crazy to put a uranium fission reactor onboard a rocket ship, and I do not know what else would suitable. Pu-238 is way too expensive for a large scale reactor. There does not seem to be a safe, practical alternative at present. Needless to say, cold fusion would be ideal.
I have only to add to Jed's fine post that we might as well build all the nuclear that we need and not worry that our materials or fuel will be stolen or misappropriated an used against us.
If we do not worry about these things we should *never* build another reactor! We need to pay a large group of highly competent experts to worry about these things 24 hours a day.
It is true that radwaste and "loose nukes" in other countries, especially Russia, or a greater immediate threat to the US than our own reactors. For that reason, we should vigorously continue with the joint cooperative project to secure Russian nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been lax about this program. (This is part of a pattern. They also been unforgivably lax about other major threats, such as weak levees in New Orleans, global warming, and avian flu. I get the impression these people do not like dealing with problems.)
We may want to look into building a full breeder program to extend the life of the supplies we are likely to be left with. The Chinese and the Japanese are.
We should definitely look closely at the Japanese breeder program! Let us learn from their mistakes. After Chernobyl, this is the second most colossal fiasco in the history of nuclear energy. It is a terrific waste of money. So was the US breeder program, at the Enrico Fermi reactor.
I know little about breeder reactors, but my impression is that we should not try to make them at this stage in the development of reactor technology. There is plenty of uranium, so even though we only "burn" a small fraction of it with today's reactors, we should continue to do so for now, put aside the spent fuel in a safe, accessible location, and let our great-grandchildren deal with it. If people still need fission reactors 200 years from now, they will presumably know much more about using them than we do, because they will have more experience. They will be in a better position to develop safe, cost-effective breeder reactors. We should concentrate instead on building inherently safe designs, and on spent fuel disposal.
Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to put off problems and let future generations deal with them. This is irresponsible. However, in some cases it is likely that future generations will be better positioned to fix the problem, and there are short-term solutions available to us which will avoid excessive damage or pollution. As long as we deal with nuclear waste responsibly, and we avoid creating a gigantic pile of the stuff scattered everywhere across the landscape in unmarked landfills, I do not think we should not worry too much about what will happen to it in 500 years. I would rather leave our great-grandchildren this problem than leave them an ecology which has been devastated by global warming.
- Jed
