Nuclear power stations
Nov. 30th, 2005 02:22 pmHave I missed something? Has there been some change in the technology that means that putting new nuclear power stations on a small crowded island that is a target for suicide bombers is a good idea?
Why is it better to make radioactive waste than carbon dioxide?
I thought the whole idea had been more or less written off after Chernobyl.
Why is it better to make radioactive waste than carbon dioxide?
I thought the whole idea had been more or less written off after Chernobyl.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 01:31 pm (UTC)There are masses of power sources, and all of them have problems. Either they don't produce much power, they do produce waste products, they're non-renewable, they might upset birds/whales/butterflies etc, or people don't want them next door.
Wind power was popular a few years ago, but it's being NIMBYed out of existence (some of my clients are in the field).
The demand at the moment is for something that will produce non-polluting power cheaply without requiring any visible structures.
The alternatives that fit that bill are:
a) off-shore tidal and wind farms (assuming the dolphins don't mind)
b) magicking the energy out of nowhere
c) nuclear
a) is immature technology - no-one knows how well it'll work as yet, and it won't at all for a good few years.
b) has no problems apart from being impossible
c) has a PR problem, but otherwise seems the least bad
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 05:34 pm (UTC)Your A B C analysis ties in with the last time that I did any serious reading on the subject, but that was (counts hastily on fingers and comes to truly horrifying conclusion) 17 years ago: surely things have moved on a bit?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 05:38 pm (UTC)