Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Personally, I see nuclear power as an intermediate step. Not because
of technology but because of humans. To convert to a system that is
dependent on renewables will require changes in our behaviors and in
our ability to accept responsibility for our actions and impacts on
the planet -- including population control, the 200 kg gorilla in
the room.
I don't see that as happening quickly unless there is a crisis. It
would also take tremendous political will to move the country in
that direction quickly (10 to 20 years). One or two politicians with
vision and knowledge and will is not enough. Look what happened to
Gore for example.
As for nuclear power, we are in some serious trouble. The power
plants that were built in the 60's and 70's were made to last for 30
years. Well, that "warranty" has expired. The metals are getting
brittle, the containment buildings are getting weaker, and on and
on. Those are also old designs with fewer safety features. Yet, we
cannot afford to turn them off as Hugh has pointed out.
I visited the Idaho National Laboratory a few years ago and was
quite impressed with the technology of newer designs for nuclear
power plants. (The name of this lab is a curious example of public
pressure and fear in its own right. The name has changed several
times to make it sound more cuddly. Swapping the word "nuclear" for
"environmental" and then dropping that all together.)
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=255&mode=2
They have developed a system that results in glassified nuclear
waste that they claim is very hard to reprocess into weapons
material or to leak into the ground water. That said, the technology
is new and experience with it is limited.
I'd love to see the shift straight to renewables, but I just don't
see that happening. I agree with the closing quote that Hugh uses
from Chip Giller. But I just don't see the USA heading in that
direction because it requires personal change and thinking long
term. (I just saw the movie "Idiocracy" which is crude and vulgar in
many ways but is disappointingly accurate in even more ways. Maybe
that is coloring my thinking right now...)
Even so, we would still be left with issues like uranium mine
tailings. I come from a state (Utah) that has one of the worst mine
tailings problem on the planet with the old Atlas mine tailings next
to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. A legacy of our 1950's rush
to all things nuclear. So even new technology nuclear plants is at
best a stop gap measure. But, as Hugh points out, there are loads of
problems with coal too.
Short of a national, in your face, crisis that directly impacts theWhat the "average Joe" is concerned about, and rightly so, is his or
"average Joe" in obvious and direct ways, I just don't see a direct
conversion to renewables.