[ QUOTE ]
In the UK, Nuclear power is regarded as a sunset industry reaching the end of its life.
[/ QUOTE ]
The UK still is running about 25% of their electrical power from nuclear.
The German decision to give up all nuclear energy sources by 2030 is a triumph for fossil fuel exporting countries. These essentially are the Islamic oil powers and Russia, as America tries to preserve its own reserves.
[ QUOTE ]
Think the whgole world is uncomfortably aware of the US contribution to greehouse gases.
[/ QUOTE ]
Under clear sky, roughly 60-70 % of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is the dominant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere.
[ QUOTE ]
I am afraid you have failed to address my earlier point about the true costs of nuclear power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't disagree that disposing of nuclear waste is going to be an expensive, long term solution--But I did address the question in the Oak Ridge link:
Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
All I was saying was that there are many sources of radioactive emissions and that while people focus on one source (nuclear power plants) there are other sources that need to be reviewed too. Disposing of ash and fly-ash from coal powered power plants has continued to be a big problem (regarding just the "normal" products of coal combustion) and people need to be concerned about radioactive disposal for other forms of power generation too.
[ QUOTE ]
Power stations have a limited life span of perhaps maximum of 40 years. A nuclear power station is enormously expensive to build and there has yet to be any completely decommissioned.
To put it in perspective the experimental reactor at Dounreay in the north of Scotalnd is anticipated to take between 50 and 100 years to demolish completely.
The waste generated will remain hazardous for 10,000 years.
[/ QUOTE ]
Looking at Dounreay, it seems that the UK government did what pretty much all governments did during early nuclear research when disposing of waste:
At Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, for over 20 years, nuclear waste and scrap from the experimental reactor and reprocessing plants were simply tipped down a disused shaft. No proper records of what was dumped were kept and eventually, in 1977 there was an explosion that showered the area with radioactive debris. In April 1998 it was finally announced that excavation and safe removal of the debris would cost £355 million
Again, not denying the problem--but to look at the amount of nuclear waste of coal vs nuclear:
[ QUOTE ]
How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even solar and wind generation equipment has a limited life of 20-30 years. That is a huge amount of materials that will need to be recycled/rebuilt. And there is the need for off-line storage or alternate power sources. Solar only works on sunny days, wind only works when there is wind. Even hydroelectric power is now seen as a
very environmentally damaging option... Plus, have you ever heard of anyone that has dredged the sediment of these large lakes that are created with hydro?
I still believe that never needing the power in the first place (energy efficiency, energy conservation, etc.) is also going to be important.
However, one cannot just overlook the technology we have today in nuclear power (with, politically in-correct technology, breeder reactors) there is a virtually unlimited source of energy--or, at least enough, energy until fusion power can become commercially viable (if that does ever happen).
What would you *do* regarding power in the earth now and for the near future?
While the US is certainly, today, burning the candle at both ends regarding energy use..., there are several billion people out there that would also like some chance at an improved life style too. If we make the wrong choices, many may die. And remember, that no matter what you or I may do, other countries (such as China, India, etc.) may choose to make other decisions that they believe are best for them (China seems to be going towards coal for a near-term solution and nuclear for longer term--and they have over a billion people to worry about).
There is a very interesting "new" source of natural gas (relatively clean burning). Methane Hydrate is found in the deep ocean...
Worldwide resources, however, are massive at an estimated 25,000 trillion cubic meters (875,000 trillion cubic feet), according to current estimates. That contains about twice the carbonized energy as the earth's coal, oil and gas resources combined.
-Bill
Added *missing word* and fixed typo
