Steve GannThe Nuclear Debate and Renewable Alternatives
February 27th 2007 12:55
First off, I am not anti-nuclear. I believe that nuclear energy will eventually play an important role in supplying energy. My belief is that that time is not yet. I have followed the progress of this technolgy and the various steps it has made over the years.
There are two significant problems. One, is that these massive heat engines operate at very high temperatures. The second problem is that the fuel material, whatever it is, operates in a central core topolgy. This is done to concentrate the energy generated and to pass it then through a heat exchanger which boils the water to drive turbines. Because of the high temperatures used and the inherent problems in controlling nuclear materials at a sub-critical level, there is danger of equipment failure or material degeneration. It is difficult to anticipate and hard to montor these aspects in fully operating plant. Think of three of these reactors operating side by side and it does start to get complicated, even dangerous.
My recommendation for a nuclear program would be to design and engineer better technology. From this can come greater efficiency and greater safety. That's another problem with the current state of nuclear reactors. Although they should operate with greater efficiency, even outperforming coal in terms of cost per unit produced, this is usually not the case. The pro-nuclear lobby will tell you differently, but the truth is they don't give the full picture.
There hasn't been enough developemnt. The engineers need more input in the planning and design. Nuclear reactors have not been looked at with enough innovation. The reason for that is simple. Our nuclear physicists and their engineering partners are not given the incentives or the overall support. Give them another eight to ten years. They can work on the problems of containment and control. Then we have the possibility, almost certainty, of greater safety with effective management processes. How long would it take to come up with a true shift into newer safer technology? This is hard to say. At the moment it is a possibility, but not with our scientists being shackled - without any chance to find the correct solution.
How long? Say a dozen years, maybe more. So what do we do in the meant-time? One thing is for certain, we don't build nuclear reactors in their current state of development. We look for alternatives - clean alternatives - and we work at cleaning up the pollution in any way we can.
Some quick notes on that direction. Encourage the planting of trees.
For every tree cut down, plant 10 in it's place. For every human born there should be a tree planted in their first year. In the second year, four trees, in the third 10 and then ten trees each year, for the rest of his life.
Solar cells will become cheaper, when the volume increases. Similarly wind machines will become more economical, the more they are utilised. Cut down emissions and plant trees: This should be your mantra.
No I take it back! The mantra should be plant trees - straight and simple. But in truth, it will be a mix of all these processes that save our planet.
So nuclear, maybe. At some time in the future, when the operation is as safe as switching on a light. That is what we should be looking for and it ain't there yet. The answer at the moment, still lies in the future.
That being said, we can't sit around hoping things will go the way we want them to. We have to make an effort. Otherwise, what's it all for?
PS Plant more trees. Plant more trees. Plant more trees.
There are two significant problems. One, is that these massive heat engines operate at very high temperatures. The second problem is that the fuel material, whatever it is, operates in a central core topolgy. This is done to concentrate the energy generated and to pass it then through a heat exchanger which boils the water to drive turbines. Because of the high temperatures used and the inherent problems in controlling nuclear materials at a sub-critical level, there is danger of equipment failure or material degeneration. It is difficult to anticipate and hard to montor these aspects in fully operating plant. Think of three of these reactors operating side by side and it does start to get complicated, even dangerous.
My recommendation for a nuclear program would be to design and engineer better technology. From this can come greater efficiency and greater safety. That's another problem with the current state of nuclear reactors. Although they should operate with greater efficiency, even outperforming coal in terms of cost per unit produced, this is usually not the case. The pro-nuclear lobby will tell you differently, but the truth is they don't give the full picture.
There hasn't been enough developemnt. The engineers need more input in the planning and design. Nuclear reactors have not been looked at with enough innovation. The reason for that is simple. Our nuclear physicists and their engineering partners are not given the incentives or the overall support. Give them another eight to ten years. They can work on the problems of containment and control. Then we have the possibility, almost certainty, of greater safety with effective management processes. How long would it take to come up with a true shift into newer safer technology? This is hard to say. At the moment it is a possibility, but not with our scientists being shackled - without any chance to find the correct solution.
How long? Say a dozen years, maybe more. So what do we do in the meant-time? One thing is for certain, we don't build nuclear reactors in their current state of development. We look for alternatives - clean alternatives - and we work at cleaning up the pollution in any way we can.
Some quick notes on that direction. Encourage the planting of trees.
For every tree cut down, plant 10 in it's place. For every human born there should be a tree planted in their first year. In the second year, four trees, in the third 10 and then ten trees each year, for the rest of his life.
Solar cells will become cheaper, when the volume increases. Similarly wind machines will become more economical, the more they are utilised. Cut down emissions and plant trees: This should be your mantra.
No I take it back! The mantra should be plant trees - straight and simple. But in truth, it will be a mix of all these processes that save our planet.
So nuclear, maybe. At some time in the future, when the operation is as safe as switching on a light. That is what we should be looking for and it ain't there yet. The answer at the moment, still lies in the future.
That being said, we can't sit around hoping things will go the way we want them to. We have to make an effort. Otherwise, what's it all for?
PS Plant more trees. Plant more trees. Plant more trees.
| 76 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
