Liquidacid23 said:
Leadfinger said:
I'm writing this from Japan, where still a large part of Touhoku is a Chernobyl zone because of radiation. When the accident occurred there were blackouts and food rationing as far away as Tokyo. In short, the Fukushima disaster was of such a scale to effect the whole country for decades to come. When the costs of even one accident are so enormous, how can nuclear be seen as a viable energy source?
pffft not like it's the first time the Japanese have been nuked... they'll be fine
And the dick of the Month award goes to....
Ok, as regards nuclear fuel I have this to say:
It's a great way to produce energy, in that other sources such as wind, solar etc. are unreliable. With nuclear energy it is really easy to calculate how much energy you are going to get, so excess energy will not be wasted on the grid.
It does have it's downsides, of which nuclear waste is the largest, but waste has been minimised phenomenally so far, and will hopefully be reduced to so little as to be a negligible problem in the next few decades, with cleaner fuel sources, more efficient use/reuse of fuel, and even possibly nuclear fusion in the cards, it could become a really clean energy.
All other power generation devices have major drawbacks that actually make them less desirable than a potentially minimum waste nuclear facility: Geothermal has a rather small scale production, and only suited to a few places geologically (and if the holes are drilled incorrectly could develop new fault lines and earthquake zones)
Wind and solar are again small scale, expensive, and unreliable. To create a large generation of electricity from them you'd need to plaster them everywhere, and as far as the national grid is concerned, the potential energy a wind farm
could output must be slashed by a third to account for it's unreliability.
Hydroelectric is great, but really devastates the immediate local environments, and can lead to huge sustainability issues with the local ecosystems and riverflow (see the Nile Aswan dam for details on screwing up the environment)
As for coal, oil and gas, well they are disatrous for the environment, dangerous to locals living near them, deadly for miners digging the stuff up, desolate the seas during oil spills, and we are running out. Wait, why do we still support them?
In my opinion nuclear energy is not yet at the stage where it is ideal for taking over from fossil fuels, but it is very near that point. Within a decade or two I would expect nuclear safety and cleanliness to improve so much that having them as the main power sources to our national grids would be ideal.