(Untitled)

[zhai]

Interesting article via nalroth from the author of Greenpeace advocating embracing nuclear power to avoid global catastrophic climate change:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Comments

[zhai]

You bring up some really good points, of course... I don't pretend to know the right answers to any of them, though I am going to reply to Egg's comment above and point him down here to see if he can provide insight on nuclear waste management -- he was our resident nuke at RPI and knows all about that stuff.

I think my end perception on all of this is that I don't think that nuclear is a good long-term solution at all, but I think the faster we can get off oil, the better, and it can provide a bridge to more sustainable energy sources -- wind, hydro, etc. Those energy sources are coming but they just aren't going to get to us fast enough, in large part because of the transition problem between the oil economy (we would need more oil to get the infrastructure up and running) and clean energy. Nuke definitely has its dangers and its consequences but I think in the grand scheme they're manageable and a better solution than just waiting for peak oil to hit and the world to start going to shit.

Though the middle east is pretty fucked once everyone goes off of oil, too. Though they do still have China, whom we'd be fighting with over oil pretty soon anyway...

[eggsniper]

I'm not sure about the 40 years to 1/1000 radioactivity, but it sounds reasonable. But you wouldn't want the stuff reaching ground water at that point either. It's not just spent fuel they're burying, it's also various parts and assemblies (mostly from the core vessel) that have been irradiated, and that stuff wouldn't take too long to cool down.

The author's claims that free energy sources can't keep up with steady demand is interesting. I suppose with regards to large cities and what not that might be the case. However putting mandates in building codes that require some minimum level of energy independence (imagine how many solar panels you could put on the southern face of a skyscraper, with plenty of room for batteries) would go a long way to correcting that. I say spread the load, move away from centralized power stations.

Whether by drop off in supply or by overwhelming demand, oil will not be able to meet our needs in the future. Nuclear's a good stopgap I suppose, but it still requires that centralization that is one of the main shortcomings if you ask me, as well as a vulnerability.