On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:47:29 -0400, the_bmac wrote:

Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...

When looking at the bad aspects of nukes, it makes sense to likewise
look at the same for current power generation sources.
I don't have all the numbers for the tons of filth put in the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the damage done, and the elements
thereby remaining in human tissue, but I'm pretty sure those who do
would make the case that it far worse than nukes generating equivalent
power.
Much of the fossil fuel burning goes to stationary outputs; power for
homes and manufacturing, heating homes, etc. Natural gas reserves
are also being reduced to generate electricity, making it more and
more expensive to heat buildings with NG.
Nukes can replace all of that fossil fuel use.
I'm guessing here, but having been a long time commuter often caught
in miles long jams, I suspect most of the transport fuel is burned by
commuters and those otherwise taking short trips.
Nuke power charged batteries could replace much of that.
The challenges of safe nuke plants and better battery technology
hardly seem daunting. The French have done well with nukes, and
I believe we can even improve on that, since their program is decades
old. Waste disposal is always a difficult issue, be it nuclear, fly
ash, plastic garbage bags, or holding tanks. Lots of scare tactics
are employed about nukes, but the dangers can be managed.
The big problem is weak, squirrely politicians who won't provide
leadership by setting out concrete goals.
Just my thoughts.

--Vic