jamius.com

I really wish the stigma of nuclear power would go away. It is the most viable in the long run out of all the current mainstream energy sources. The problem is that people don't understand it and so are frightened. Images of Chernobyl and Fukushima and Atomic Bombs and cancer and fallout are all associated with nuclear power. Unfortunately it's not something you can just figure out on your own. Only specialized teams can have access to the materials, and with good reason, but as a result people can't figure it out on their own as they could for, say, solar or wind or hydro power.

You are right. Nuclear is the most reasonable long term option that would provide the least polution, but people don't see it. Think such as coal plants are guaranteed to pollute. Hydro-electric is limited. Solar isn't practical on a large scale.

Nuclear power will definitely be delayed in the U.S. because of public ignorance, but China is developing new nuclear plants that are basically meltdown proof. They are design so that a meltdown will basically cause the reactor to shut down. I read about that a while back.

People also do not realize that the fuel in nuclear plants cannot explode like an atomic bomb. The fuel is about 5% uranium. A nuclear bomb contains uranium that is almost 100% uranium. It also takes a crap load of neutrons hitting the fuel at once to cause a nuclear explosion, which isn't easy to do.

People in the U.S. that were against nuclear plants did more to pollute the environment than all the big businesses combined.

I believe it was India that is making reactors that don't use uranium for fuel. I believe it was thorium or something like that they are using since it is more readily available to them.

The ideal solution to the nuclear waste issue is launching it into interstellar space or maybe even the sun . But unfortunately, not so very cost-effective if it could be done, I think people would accept it more. Of course, you would have the 'sunhuggers' that would protest it, but yeah, screw 'em

What exactly makes solar not practical on a large scale?

The issue with nuclear waste isn't so bad. Build breeder reactors and there is very little nuclear waste and they basically produce their own fuel.

greenspree wrote:What exactly makes solar not practical on a large scale?

Yeah, what he said...

greenspree wrote:What exactly makes solar not practical on a large scale?

You'd need miles and miles and miles of acres to produce the amount of power to make it practical. Land isn't getting any cheaper. At least that's my guess. Solar panels just aren't as efficient as we want them to be.

Humans already use too much land.Studies of global land use over the last 300 years show a grim outcome. In the long term, there are going to be big problems caused by the way we use land. Things like strip mining, roads, large concrete cities, to name a few. They all modified the soil or removed the life that was in it. Exactly what solar plants do. Good large scale solar would be solar roadsways. Use land we already use, put panels on roofs instead of on top of nature. And duh, energy decentralization?? Or do you want to keep paying corporate shmucks sell you 'green energy' produced in a chopped down tropical forests in the equitorial region, because solar radiation is at its highest there? It has been done in Brasil and other countries. This kind of scam irritates me so much. Say they produce a kilowatt of dirty energy, they trade the dirty kilowatt for a green kilowatt, and sell you the dirty one but they say it's 100% renewable. This is just as shady like "CO2-coupons" (this is my best English translation, they have a very fancy name in Dutch). Practically, my country (Belgium) buys 'clean air' from Romania so it can produce pollution in our own country.. And the parameters on which how clean the Romanian air we buy is, are based on data from 1980, when Romania was a rural country with almost no industry. Raaagh! I need a Jamie-lifestyle!

I once heard that a nuclear plant on 5 acres of land would produce as much power as 5 square miles of solar panels. I don't know how accurate that is, but it gives you an idea of the scale.

sjvsworldtour wrote:I once heard that a nuclear plant on 5 acres of land would produce as much power as 5 square miles of solar panels. I don't know how accurate that is, but it gives you an idea of the scale.

And what are the comparative costs?