(02-02-2017, 02:02 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:
(02-01-2017, 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote: We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.
It may well be that a means to safely generate and store waste will arise.
Until then we are stuck with the old.
The youngest nuke plant in the U.S. is 20 years old. The technology that built/designed it is 30 to 40 years old. It takes forever to get these things through regulatory hurdles and construct. Most all of the operating nuke power plants have reached or surpassed their designed life expectancy. Most have had 'extensions' granted.
What I'm basically saying it's going to take TIME to develop, construct and put online any replacements, safe or otherwise. Power utilities work on a 20 year out time frame, it's even longer for nuclear.
We cannot sit in the dark until the perfect nuke solution arrives and is deployed. We can do fossil fuels cleanly and aggressively search for improved alt-energy sources while avoiding the pitfalls of nuclear.
The reason it takes so long for new nuclear plants to come online or old nuclear plants to be replaced with new ones is because the regulations required are so insane that once a plant starts being used it keeps on being used until it is no longer feasible to operate.
Put it to you this way, imagine if instead of paying $20,000 to $35,000 for a car that you needed to get to work you had to pay $100,000 to $200,000 for a new car. How long would you wait to place it if you only made somewhere between $35,000 to $50,000 a year. Would it be something like the time it takes people in Cuba to replace their cars, who haven't had any car imports over the last several decades?
If you make it impossible for nuclear power plants to operate (and even harder for new ones to come online) through endless red tape of course it is going to create addition problems. If you really want to see what happens whether a country goes nuclear or goes 'Green' all you got to do is compare Germany and France, with France choosing nuclear and Germany going 'Green'.
To be honest it has been several years since I read up on it so it is possible for France to be having problems I'm not aware of and Germany doing ok, but the last I checked Germany's Green Tech had to be heavily subsidized by the government.
Also I suggest reading the book "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" by Robert Bryce who says that there are several problems that need to be addressed before Green energy can be feasibly used as a alternative to fossil fuel and that eventually nuclear will replace fossil fuel when they start to run out. In a nutshell, Green energy is way to often way to expensive to be used as an alternative to fossil and nuclear and if they are used on as a large scale as nuclear and fossil fuel they start creating resistance/NIMBY groups against them as well.
Par to the problem is people like complaining when there is any kind of power plant (or actually any kind of industry whether it be casino amusement park, etc) and they will offer alternatives until those alternatives are used near where they live or placed in someones else's back yard where they start complaining about it as well.