Nuclear power plants are a practical option for producing clean, cost-effective power but is nuclear power an absolute necessity ?? I tend to disagree about the need to maintain and develop nuclear power as an energy source altogether. It will for sure detract from the effort to develop other renewable sources of energy in the future?
Nuclear energy is too dangerous, and too polluting. Protection against natural disasters, such earthquakes, floods, or fires are also a concern. As the wildfires raging across Russia / Japan's earthquake have demonstrated natural disasters pose a threat to the security of nuclear power plants.
Isn't it the time to look at the renewable alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal power

Clean ?


Clean ???


Clean ??????

Tell that to those poor souls in Japan within 30Km of the reactor.
Nuclear waste - clean ??????

Yes I agree it's not clean !
And when plants are operating perfectly, they're still producing high-level radioactive waste. No country in the world has solved the problem of how to dispose of it, and even the most optimistic advanced reactor designs will continue adding to the lethal mountain of waste already produced

Until there is no "Waste" residue, Nuclear will never be clean.


I think "Geothermal" is about as clean as it's ever going to get, but unfortunately, it's not available for everyone.

I think the problem with most alternative energy sources is that they still won't meet the demands of our current energy needs. Not right now anyway.

GSHP's are though... This would reduce our heating costs, having a direct affect on the volume of non-renewables we consume....

Waves !!!!

All day , all night , all year. Unlike Sun and Wind. Predictable, reliable and relatively clean.

Yes unfortunately it's necessary in this society

Click on the link and you'll see why
http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-cont...on-per-kwh.jpg

A scientist quoted some figures on the news today to show that nuclear energy is cleaner and causes less problems than some other forms of energy generation. I don't recall the specific figures.

If you take problems from coal mining, the smog from years gone by and other similar issues into consideration he may well have been correct.

When there is a problem with nuclear power it is almost certain to be a big one. The accidents and deaths as a result of other forms largely go unreported.

It is somewhat like comparing car accidents to air crashes.

I am not against nuclear power but feel that much more effort should be put into energy conservation and renewable energy first.

__________________
"I'll say I can't tell you when, But if my spirit is strong, I know it can't be long, No questions I'm not alone, Somehow I'll find my way home" Rod

Personal Geothermal Heat Pumps are NOT available to everyone. Just ask anyone who has plans to build a house; sometimes the lie of the land, soil conditions etc prevent their installation.

I have to find a source on this but don't wave generators have an effect on the local ecosystem? Since waves and currents have an important effect on aerating the local water body, converting that energy to electricity can be detrimental. I'd ned to check up on that though.

Another alternative is a sea tidal stream driven turbine, SeaGen. There is one in Strangford Lough in Co. Down. As the tide flows in and out of the narrow-necked lock, the water travels at a high enough velocity to drive a small electric turbine.

__________________
Stealing jokes off the internet and passing them off as my own since 1995

The new slinky coils circumvent the problems with available suitable land. Failing that, you just have to drill down far enough. Costs might make the latter prohibitive. And although not clearly indicated, I was referring to commercial scale GSHP's.

Wave driven generators have the luxury of being able to be placed almost anywhere to reduce the impact. The strength of the wave will not be impacted if placed in the open sea, and the affect below almost neglible if the sea bottom is hundreds of meters below. The fact is ,even the most detrimental impact by these new technologies is far more favourable to coal mining and burning, and nuclear fallout.

The supply of nuclear fuels is limited. At best nuclear is only a short term stop gap measure. So Why are we not thinking the benefits of electicity from solar power on an gigantic international scale? The size of such a venture would bring nations together to solve the energy needs of the planet which is what is presently needed.

Are you sure about that?

With our current lifestyle we need nuclear power and much more of it unfortunately. Even now with all the terrible things happening in Japan if you ask everybody to turn off their electrical appliances for 2 hours a day, you will not find many takers.

The simple fact is that we all need to use less energy but the truth is none of us will follow up on it.

I agree, but don't give up ! Sooner or later we won't have a choice.

A large problem with geothermal energy, is that if you have to dig really deep, you can inadvertently create a fault line that will cause earthquakes. It happened here in Switzerland.

Interesting article here.

I find energy to be "a lesser of evils" type of thing. You really just have to look at what will work in each individual case.

It's the way human do their jobs without care that cause disasters...lack of controls, irresponsibility, greed....it's an unstoppable trend...

For the moment, nuclear is the only way, as we are deeply inside (at least some countries like France).

Other ressources are not enough, unless we decide to really lower our power need.

Or to really develop some interesting way, like the Z R -machine

The deep divide over nuclear power is nearly as old as its commercial use. The early
dreams of its proponents have faded, whereas the high risks have remained, as well as
the danger of misuse by military interests. Terrorism has introduced dramatic, concrete
threat. Global warming and the finite nature of fossil fuels do not dispel the major safety
issues associated with nuclear power. And the "accident-proof" reactor has remained an
unfulfilled promise now for decades.
Artificial warming of earth's atmosphere will surely pose one of the greatest challenges
of the 21st century. But there are less hazardous ways to deal with this problem than by
using nuclear power. Nuclear power is not sustainable, because its fissile fuel materials
are as limited as fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Moreover, its radioactive
by-products must be isolated from the biosphere for periods of time that defy human
imagination.
Nuclear energy is not only a high-risk technology in terms of safety, but also with respect
to financial investment. Without state subsidies, it does not stand a chance in a
market economy. Yet companies will continue to profit from nuclear energy under special,
state-controlled conditions. Extending the licences of older reactors is an attractive
option for operators – but disproportionately increases the risk of major accident. And
there will always be regimes that view and promote civilian use of nuclear fission as a
stepping stone to acquiring an atomic bomb. Moreover, as has been clear since 11 September
2001 at the latest, these vulnerable and very hazardous sites represent an additional
target for unscrupulous and violent non-governmental forces. For this reason as
well, nuclear power will continue to divide public opinion for as long as it remains in
use.
Nuclear technology thus occupies an absolutely unique position. Half a century after entering
commercial markets, fuelled by subsidies in the billions, it still requires and receives
state support for every new project – precisely as if it needed assistance to enter
the market for the first time. Astonishingly, this extraordinary practice is also advocated
and demanded precisely by those politicians who otherwise cannot call loudly enough
for "more market conditions" in the energy sector. In many industrial countries, these
very same politicians produce market theory arguments to campaign against subsidising
the actual launch of renewable energy from solar, wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal
sources. But there is yet another essential difference: The future of nuclear energy is
past, whereas the future of renewable energies is just beginning.

http://www.boell.org.il/downloads/NI...h_version).pdf

Wave power is a long way to the north, and 30% of the power is lost in the distribution adding to global warming. Wind power is limited, and not steady here as in northern Europe. Coal power is cheap and dirty, oil power will soon run out, sunlight thermal power is very limited in winter. Hydro-electric power is good, but would be catastrophic if an eathquake hit the dam.

There are minor geological fault lines in Switzerland: along the River Rhine and on the Alpine mountain range. So drilling deeply for thermal energy in Basel was asking for trouble!

So we either put on our overcoats and burn candles, or we use nuclear fuel sensibly and stop panicking. Remember the earthquake didn't break the power stations, it was the 10 meter Tsunami that destroyed all the cooling systems.

There is one good alternative: to use the abundant geo-thermal energy in Iceland to create electricity and thus make hydrogen from seawater. Then use the hydrogen in Europe as a fuel.

Problem with that is that Begga's mates will then have the upper hand over all of us!

miss_bean - I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. To supply the amounts of energy we need Today nuclear energy is the only option. As I understand it, solar panels are very inefficient to make, so to make them you need large amounts of energy from somewhere.

I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but until we start to turn off lights in office buildings at night, and take more energy saving measures in the home, there really is no choice.

We use too much energy and it must stop. But this will never happen. If the people in Africa and the other developing nations use electricity like we do in the west then we need thousands of new power stations.

Rather than have a discussion about the safety of nuclear power stations lets have a discussion about saving energy.

One last point. The problem in Japan was caused by a Tsunami, not a problem with the power station itself. 3 mile island was a faulty valve followed by human error where they did the exact opposite of what needed to be done, but even so the damage was limited and no wide spread radiation followed.

Chernobyl we will probably never know for sure what really happened, but yes it was bad.

__________________
Life's what you make it, so let's make it better