Sylvester3
Registered User
- Messages
- 300
Ok, but did you read the quote from New Scientist regarding the true cost of Nuclear Energy?
This more accessible wiki page discusses the different types of nuclear waste, and the controversies involved in their disposal - not surprisingly no one wants it. It states that the quantity of High Level Waste is increasing by 12000 metric tonnes per year, but also talks about Intermediate level waste which is also hazardous and must be stored safely.
Personally I wouldn't have that much of a problem with nuclear energy, and would welcome Nuclear Fusion if they ever got it working, but I think that the true cost of 'traditional' fission plants has been passed on to the taxpayer and that they are really not a good answer for our current energy problems. If they are going to subsidise nuclear fission so much to make it viable, why not invest the same money to make solar or other renewable sources viable? That would make sense to me.
[EDIT] - I think I missed a couple of your links on first reading, which I have now checked out. It seems that there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation going on, with different interpretations of the same data, making it difficult to talk about real facts. My personal view is that alternative energy supplies should be explored with the same subsidies that nuclear fission plants have recieved, but I can see that Nuclear power plants are probably going to be with us for a very long time. Lets hope they are in someone else's backyard!
This more accessible wiki page discusses the different types of nuclear waste, and the controversies involved in their disposal - not surprisingly no one wants it. It states that the quantity of High Level Waste is increasing by 12000 metric tonnes per year, but also talks about Intermediate level waste which is also hazardous and must be stored safely.
Personally I wouldn't have that much of a problem with nuclear energy, and would welcome Nuclear Fusion if they ever got it working, but I think that the true cost of 'traditional' fission plants has been passed on to the taxpayer and that they are really not a good answer for our current energy problems. If they are going to subsidise nuclear fission so much to make it viable, why not invest the same money to make solar or other renewable sources viable? That would make sense to me.
[EDIT] - I think I missed a couple of your links on first reading, which I have now checked out. It seems that there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation going on, with different interpretations of the same data, making it difficult to talk about real facts. My personal view is that alternative energy supplies should be explored with the same subsidies that nuclear fission plants have recieved, but I can see that Nuclear power plants are probably going to be with us for a very long time. Lets hope they are in someone else's backyard!