André Axe'm wrote:There are three reasons I would replace coal with nuclear.
1. We have the stuff and we don't have to sell it to China.
2. Less polluting than coal power. Possibly safer to mine as well.
3. Nuclear medicine.
Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.
If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.
China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.
Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.
André Axe'm wrote:Wayne19540, with all the fearmongering that happen with anything nuclear, it has extremely good safeguards. You have nothing to worry about from being near a nuclear power plant.
TRB wrote:Except you can just shut off any other kind of plant within minutes.
No other system requires the dumping of 11tons of radioactive water weeks after the event because the reactor is still in runaway mode.
You'd have to wonder what kind of retard builds a nuclear reactor near known fault lines on the coast and then doesn't even build it to handle 8.9, seeing as there is on average 1 8.9 earthquake somewhere in the world every year.
TRB wrote:...doesn't even build it to handle 8.9, seeing as there is on average 1 8.9 earthquake somewhere in the world every year.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests