I also think that, for the next 50 to 100 years, nuclear fission
option is worth supporting (as opposed to coal option described
by Mike Edmiston). Nothing is ideal, what we choose should
be based on relative merits. I hope that solar option, nuclear
fusion option, or something totally unexpected, will be shown
to be practical, and better, in the future.
Would it be worth our time to develop o list of advantages
and disadvantages of nuclear fission option. I suggest we
use A and D to quickly identify advantages and disadvantages.
Also Q to identify a question worth addressing. Keep labeling
items in the same way (see below) and I will be appending
your inputs to the grownig list. The sorted list (according to
A, D and Q) will be periodically posted to reflect new
contributions.
The items should be as short as possible for the purpose of
this list; we can have parallel threads to discuss the issues.
Let me begin.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A1) No production of CO2.
D1) Accumulation of long-lived radioactive waste.
D2) Production of Pu which can be used to build weapons.
A2) Large supplies of fuel are available.
D3) Possibility of highly devastating accidents, like
Chernobyl.
Q1) Should nuclear energy topics be part of general physics?
D4) Costly fuel enrichment process.
Q2) What is wrong with breeding Pu-239 (from common U)
or U-233 (from common Th)?
Q3) Should the development of nuclear waste "burning"
technology be supported at present time?
Q4) How many Yucca mountains would be needed if 100%
of electricity was nuclear, all over the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep adding. Next item should be A3, D5 or Q5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ludwik Kowalski