Today: Iraq

[kandrathe]

Ok. I'll take a bite of this one, one more time.

Nuclear power plants to make very ugly waste, and its hard to find people willing to take it.

I challenge you to compare the contents of the tons of coal fly-ash to nuclear waste. What remains after burning off the coal is very toxic, containing lead, mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals. All this waste is happily carted off to fill some landfill and pollute your water. While the "waste" from spent nuclear fuel is really not waste and is still radioactive and can be reused as fuel in other types of reactors.

Also it(the waste and the plants to lesser degree than the waste) makes a wonderful target for terrorists.

Radiological bombs. Well if they were to explode something in my neighborhood, I would rather it be radiological than most any other toxic non-radiological chemical. Why? Because it is really hard to detect where the dioxin, mercury, or arsenic went after the explosion, but radioactive material is really, really easy to find and comparitively easier clean up. Now, an air burst dioxin bomb would be 100x more scary than a radiological bomb. Or, if you were a terrorist why not go after the big special effects? Huge storages of liquified natural gas? Hydrazine? Source: Immediately Dangerous to Life Concentrations of Chemicals

Sure you can suggest reasonable solutions for both problems - but unless you are going to enact the solutions before you build more plants its a its BAD solution, no matter what you name it.  And thanks to various special interest groups I dont see the solutions being firmly in place for a long time.

The technology of today is certainly better than that when most of the operating plants were built. We have 3 fission plants within 50 miles of my house that have operated safely for 30 years. I would love to see 2 or 3 more plants built in my area insuring me of warmth in the winters of my old age. As for waste, if you insist on throwing away a valuable commodity, then I like the French solution myself. Cool down the cores, granulate them and mix them into melted glass. Seal them into large glass blocks and bury them deep within the Uranium mines where they were extracted or other geologically stable existing mine shafts.

Personally I think rather than waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people nuclear power is safe, we ought to convince them to use less energy.

Much better for people to waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people wrongly that nuclear power is unsafe. Stupidity is unsafe, no matter how it is applied.

So, dial power consumption back? Sacrificing the manufacture of your TV, your Car? Down to say what level? Zero? We are a planet of over 6 billion people now. After the age of the consuption of hydrocarbons ends, what is left for us? Solar (or Wind, Wave, or whatever form it takes)? Not likely. It is too dilute. Prior to the industrial age which included the use of hydrocarbons for fuel, the planet was capable of sustaining a few hundred thousand humans. Which of us will remain in the face of a vastly diminished food supply and no electricity?

Of course, the other, better, question now before us is; Should we continue to consume the hydrocarbons we are consuming due to its impact on the atmosphere?