Is nuclear power the answer?

[meanmachine]

Nuclear power provides about 11% of the worlds power

Advantages

Nuclear power costs about the same as coal, so it's not expensive to make.

Does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel.

Produces small amounts of waste.

Nuclear power is reliable.

Even though accidents may happen and it is dangerous - these are minor setbacks to what global warming has in store for us

although it is limited.. but can last us for a long time

what do you think?

[War Eagle]

good topic meanmachine, I agree with you on all but 2.

-Produces small amounts of waste;

Long term management of high-level radioactive waste is an extremely difficult problem, and any attempts to minimize it is/has always been in vain.

&

-Even though accidents may happen and it is dangerous - these are minor setbacks to what global warming has in store for us;

And what about accidents? In its famous Brookhaven Report of 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission indicated what the results of a single major accident at a relatively small reactor 40 miles from

a city might be:

* 3,000 to 4,000 deaths immediately from radiation poisoning,

* 50,000 deaths later on from radiation-induced injuries;

* up to 150,000 square miles of land contaminated,

not to mention

* contamination of water supplies and

* evacuation of half a million people.

The Report goes on to say that the probability of such an accident occurring is so low as to be almost inconceivable. But this is a very unscientific statement, as the probability of most major accidents is so low as to be almost zero. No doubt the probability of the Titanic sinking on its maiden voyage was very small.

Anyway, how do you compute the probability of an accident? Do you count on the possibility of sabotage? (It would make an even bigger splash than kidnapping Pierre Laporte). Or the possibility of war? (What would happen if an old-fashioned conventional bomb were dropped on such a reactor?) What about the possibility of an airplane crashing into a reactor? (Remember, Pickering is also going to be the site of a huge airport. Only last month we witnessed the spectacle of a band of hijackers threatening to crash the plane they had hijacked into a nuclear installation. It could happen accidentally too.)

by Gordon Edwards

University of British Columbia

1972

The Dangers of Nuclear Power: An Open Letter to Physicists

This was written way back in 1972...correct me if i'm wrong here but isn't this the exact same kinds of 'problems/threats' we face today?

IMO i always thought Solar Power was or seemed the best way to go in the future.?

[promKing]

Yes!! Nuclear power is a solution.

Nuclear waste can be eaten by special bacteria (see link)

http://www.physorg.com/news6046.html

But oil companies that rule the world won't allow something like that.

Edited October 14, 2007 by promKing

[War Eagle]

Sounds promising promKing, if it works why not but as you say the 'big boys' aren't ready for it yet, first they have to suck & bleed the earth dry.

Germany incidentally are using nanobiotics(Nanotechnology Takes Off) right now to eradicate bacteria off floors and walls etc in industry, i'm curious to know whether they can or have they already(?) created nanobiotics to eradicate nuclear waste eh?(just a thought)...again something like that would only work against the interests of the major oil companies.... and we're always back to where we started so why do i even bother posting has me freaking out. lol!