Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch XXX
i think people like John McCain and those who push for nuclear reactors all over the US must have never heard of Chernobyl.
|
I think nuclear is a viable option. The main risk is dealing w/ the waste, but there are advances in this field - even last week it was demonstrated that special kilns can vaporise waste by up to 99% - leaving a much more manageable problem.
There were many, many issues with Chernobyl- a very faulty system design, an idiot at the helm who was personally responsible for creating the initial explosion, etc.
Not to say it could never happen again, but considering that to be the only major blight in the history of nuclear generation, it's something.
The problem with 'greener' alternatives, such as wind, solar, etc - apart from efficiency, is that they take huge amounts of fossil fuels and 'dirty' power sources to manufacture. There's no magic bullet.
Even geothermal heating, and wave based generations have inherent problems with efficiency. Geothermal: if everyone taps in, and don't put back what they pull out, it's ruined - and not viable in an urban construct. Wave is limited to the amount that can be pulled out, and there are environmental considerations.
Considering that the emissions of a nuclear plant are steam, I'd say that's a fairly decent trade off. A vast portion of europe runs on nuclear.