Thread: nuclear plants
View Single Post
Old 09-24-2008, 01:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Interested Newbie
Katana's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bournemouth, England
Posts: 83

Silver Citroen Saxo - '02 Citroen Saxo 1.4i Furio
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nuclear has a bad rep it doesn't deserve, you talk about radiation but coal plants put more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear plant does.

The future of nuclear power is very interesting and much cleaner and safer than you can imagine, the new 3rd and 4th generation reactors are impossible to melt down, designed with the laws of physics in mind so they can't, google Pebble Bed Reactor. They'd probably be in service already if it wasn't for envirotards screaming chernobyl and 3 mile island every time nuclear power is mentioned and pushing back progress in the area for decades.

I'm not against solar, wind and other alternatives, but they are alternatives when it comes to large scale power generation, wind and solar aren't efficient or reliable enough yet to replace huge coal/nuclear plants. Though research in these areas and battery tech will reap rewards to make it viable. No country would put it eggs in one alternative basket, you need controllable and reliable energy generation like nuclear when the wind/solar isn't putting out enough to meet demand. I don't include hydroelectric as alternative as that is reliable and can store energy by pumping water back up the dam in non-peak hours.

Hopefully in the next 100 years nuclear fusion or something like it will be available and solve these problems once and for all, though mining for helium-3 on the moon would be interesting to see.
Crooked toothed, tea swilling crumpet eater!
  Reply With Quote