where does nuclear power fit

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 12 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]389081[/snapback]</div>

By that logic we ought not refine crude into gas / oil because it drives the war machine(s) ... the facts show WAY less injuries / accidents / fatalities withing the nuke power industries than mining for coal/oil. Yes, it's like commercial flying ... the accidents are very bad when they happen, but your odds are 1,000 times greater of being killed in a car ... and most folks are in a car a lot more than they fly. Bottom line, for the amt. of energy you get, you pollute the earth less, and have greater safty, regardless of the knee jerk / gut feeling of nuke dangers.f The REAL creep factor to me is that the oil/coal industry is against nuke power (just like the oil industry is threatened by electric cars) because it impinges on their monoply.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Feb 17 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]392026[/snapback]</div>

I think the main fears are the centralized power problem and the use of uranium for weapons. The fear of a "meltdown" is not even on my list of real concerns.

 

There are reactor types that don't produce weapons grade material so there are other options. Centralized power has it's pros and cons, to be sure. Nuclear power does require a LOT of water (0.62 gal/kWh according to the AWEA) so that's something that must be taken into consideration.

 

I chose "OTHER" because the problem of storage was not a choice. Was this an oversight or a way of propaganda? Hyo Silver states my concerns best. It's not the power I object to, it's saddling future generations for eons with the toxic storage. Then there is the ability to convert the waste into weapons. An invitation for a madman. Until these MAJOR problems are eliminated I can't support the technology. Light and heat are good, but toxic waste and weapons which can kill millions are worse. Not a good trade off. For certain, when solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy are non-toxic and non weapon-grade and non-centralized they have a huge advantage over nuclear. SOLVE (not bury) these problems and I'd have another look at nuclear. Isn't it odd how I am the end of my genetic line, but unlike parents Ilook out for future generations?

 

Global warming is the result of putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with a lifetime of about 100 years. What's the answer? Instead of investing in permanently renewable energy sources with no toxic byproducts, we go back to a power source which creates toxic pollution with a lifetime of tens of thousands of years.

How smart is that?

Nuclear waste cannot be stored safely and will never be stored safely, because highly radioactive waste literally changes the structure of matter of any containment that is used. Even if you could store it safely, you've created a permanent "shrine" of fantastically toxic material that will have to be dealt with, and paid for, virtually forever.

Please, everyone, take a moment to consider how simple and practical it is to utilize the vast energy sources we have out there that that create no pollution at all, i.e. wind, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal. Yes, there is enough of it to fill our energy needs. See nrel.gov for more.