|
Re: Nuclear power
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island represent the most serious potential problems with nuclear power - an accident of the most serious kind.
Windscale (now called Sellafield... just change the name and hope people forget) represents the another of the more worrying prospects - nuclear waste, a problem that is still just "swept under the carpet", as the containers slowly rust away.
Thirdly, the issue of inevitable background radiation increase around installations, minor leaks and spills etc.
And the fuel for nuclear is not unlimited - by many estimates, it wouldn't even last as long as coal, unless "breeder" reactors were used to prove additional enrichment (though that is Plutonium enrichment of the Uranium, and not the fuel-grade uranium enrichment of an increased U235/U238 ratio).
The entire "cradle to grave" lifecycle of any energy system needs to be considered, from the cost of construction, to the cost of decommissioning, the fuel used, the waste created, and the environmental impact of all the processes involved.
Eg. Growing and then burning "fuel crops" has ZERO CO2 impact, as the C02 released is what was taken in when they were grown - until solar cells reach greater efficiency, that may be the most effective way to use solar energy, and it provides an inherent method of storage as well.
|