Greens? That was quote was from Greenpeace, which is an NGO, not a political party.
Not to say that the Greens aren't also outspoken about nuclear power as well (it's one of their policies I happen to disagree with).
ah. my bad. skimmed the article and saw green and just assumed.
although, as you say, greens will be a fairly big hurdle before we get nuclear power.
TRB wrote:Firstly, there is only 1 foundry [last I checked] that is capable of making the 15 ton reactor cores, its booked solid for the next 10-15 years already.
i'm sure someone can make another one. where there's a will there's a way.
TRB wrote:Secondly, there is a very limited supply of high grade fuel, about 50-70 years worth at current consumption, less as more reactors are built [there is a reason why china is building coal plants and not nuclear.], after that runs out you're the looking at refining the low percentage ore, which will make the fuel many many times more expensive, thus make the power it generates many many times more expensive, it'll make the various current renewables look cheap.
from what i remember, that figure was quoted in the context of if everyone stopped using every other power source, and only used nuclear, that would be the length of time we would use it for.
another thing is modern reactors are more efficient, and reusing "spent" fuel is becoming possible (afaik). so that figure is probably already outdated.
TRB wrote:Third, it'll take about 20-25 years to actually build these reactors, there is a lot of work to be done before anyone even considers laying the first foundation. then after that current reactor designs give that reactor about a 25-30 year lifespan before you have to build a new one.
I believe russia has in the last few years been shutting down their oldest remaining plants, such as the few that had still been operating at Chernobyl.
then its time to build new plants again.
as i said before, where there's a will there's a way. if people are serious about reducing the amount of **** we are putting into the atmosphere, i'm sure they wouldn't mind spending a bit of money on creating a better power source. something like the carbon tax puts a price on something that needs to be taken into account. people need to stop thinking that money is the be all and end all. pollution needs to be considered.
old reactor designs. times have changed.
TRB wrote:Finally, reactors need a massive body of standing water for their cooling towers. hands up everyone who lives on a river or lake who wants to have it ruined by a powerplant.
hands up if you would prefer a pristine lake for 50 years over a healthy planet for thousands of years. this **** is long term.
TRB wrote:nuclear is a pointless and dead end power source for terrestrial electricity.
from what i know, i disagree. fission with renewable energy is a great short term power source until we crack fusion (yeah yeah i know, it's been 10 years away for decades, but it's starting to get somewhere with the planned plants).
TRB wrote:instead of wasting billions on building that ****, why not use that money to build deep bore geo-thermal.
we know it works, we are capable of doing deep bores, at least 5km in thin areas of crust, 10km in other areas, so we can get high quality steam out of it.
there must be a reason why this isn't being used. saying that, i don't know much about it. if it's as good as everyone says, go for it.
TRB wrote:Nuclear is a stupid idea without even taking any environmental or dangers from accidents into consideration.
please join us in 2010.