Discussion on:

Why nuclear power still matters

It's interesting to read lines like 'we as a species refuse to learn
from our mistakes' and such emotional appeals, when despite all
its problems, Nuclear power has a track record of working, and
while it's dangerous, so is everything else. Nuclear accidents
COULD kill tens of thousands of people. Dam breaks HAVE killed
tens of thousands of people. Yet why are we not tearing down all
the hydropower.

There's promise in 'alternative' energy but so far they all have
one huge failing, no way to store energy, and huge space
requirements. Yes, with research and funding, some of these
problems can be solved or minimized... but too often, fans and
proponents of these are like guys smitten with a pretty girl they
hardly know: she's so beautiful she just has to be perfect, and
any issues she might have, they could fix if she'd just give them a
chance... Sorry, no one is perfect, and neither is any technology.
It'd be easier to take alternative energy fans more seriously if
they'd take the limitations of their favorite tech more seriously
themselves. In the meantime, nuclear power actually works, on a
large scale. And all the 'promise' in the world can't replace that
track record. Yes, it's 'unfair' that people won't just take that leap
of faith and invest in something that may never work the way you
hope... but trust in anything is built incrementally. That's just how
it goes, pretty girl or power plant.

@kdoylekeenan, The Article is right, there are no better options available.

There is a current worldwide famine, caused by the rage for biofuels in Europe in the US. The real reason for the Arab uprisings is hunger. When given the choice between food and fuel, the first world picked fuel. The rest of the world sensibly picks food.

Hydro power is maxed out in the US and Europe. There are no major locations for large dams that will not cause severe damage.

Solar for large plants causes a great deal of environmental damage too. Small solar, on rooftops, and over parking lots is doable, but will never be more than a minor contributor to total energy needs. I live in Arizona, and when I see the periodic proposals to build a lot of large solar plants here to power the US, I have to laugh. Those plans ignore several mountain ranges, and building the plants would destroy several thousand species of plants and animals. The EPA would never permit it. Neither would the Sierra Club.

Wind power kills a lot of birds, bats and insects. It also affects climate. Taking power out of the wind, slows the wind. That also slows wind transport of rain and warmth/coolness. Recent scientific papers I have seen are warning of wind/wave/ocean current power plans and the truly massive global climate change they would cause. There are limits to how much energy can be safely extracted from these sources without turning places like the American Great Plains or the Amazon basin into deserts like the Sahara.

Fusion still doesn't work, after 80 years of trying. There has never been a fusion reactor that produces enough energy to run the reactor. We should keep trying, but I wouldn't count on any technology until 10 years after it works. It still doesn't work.

Orbital solar should be an option in 15 years. But, it still doesn't work. The US Military wants to get a working unit in 5 years or so. We know how, but there is a lot more to learn. Still, there is a lot of room to put it there. Space after all is big, as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy notes. There is lots of sunshine that never hits the Earth. But, it will take a century for this kind of thing to make a major contribution.

Advanced combustion of coal, oil and natural gas can reduce the waste products, but the waste products are still there. Carbon sequestration just delays the impact. Everything leaks. Costs are going up for these sources too. Even if we could deal with the CO2, we get the CO2 by removing O2 from the biosphere. After a while, that will be an insurmountable problem.

So, that leaves Nuclear Power as the only option. This is the point of the referenced Article. You have a problem with current Nuclear Plants. I can understand that. The plants we have are 60 to 70 years old. They use technologies developed during the 1950's. We should be able to do better. We can do better.

You appear to be worried about the long lived 'waste'. These long lived wastes are really unburned fuel. A good design would burn this fuel. It is called 'reprocessing'. The French have been doing this since the late 1960's. The US talked about it, but never has done it. Just by changing the temperature the reactor operates at, the unburned fuel can be burned. That would require a different reactor design, and perhaps different materials during construction. The US is not ready to start building advanced, modern reactors yet.

You seem worried about the Japanese reactor safety. The reactor was designed to withstand a 7 point earthquake. It rode through a 9 point earthquake, so while damaged, it withstood 100 times the earthquake that was expected when it was built. It was not designed however to withstand a tsunami. It could have been. There has been a lot of press about the future danger from the leaks. But, not much coverage of the very real damage done to the area by the earthquake and tsunami. They are easily 10,000 times bigger than the danger from the 4 reactors at Fukishima. As this site reported a week or so ago, the accident has released enough radiation to raise exposure in an area withing 40 Kilometers (about 25 miles) around the plant to about twice the natural background level. that means that if you live there, you might get enough exposure to make you sick in about 200 years. Inside the plant, it's another story, of course.

Chernobyl, is another story. Our lesson there is that corrugated steel doesn't make an adequate containment vessel for a working reactor.

However, power is always dangerous. A large coal plant puts out as much radioactive material over a 20 year span as has been leaked by the four Fukishima reactors to date. Radiation is all around you, and always was. We make reactors work by concentrating natural radioactive materials, and manipulating conditions to speed up the decay. a reactor works by releasing a million years of natural radiation every month. with some work, we could use most of the highly radioactive by-products as fuel too. many of the rest are valuable for other uses too.

Thanks @YetAnotherBlob for the informative comment. It justifies itself as a miniarticle for the information in contains. It really show how well-learned you are.

However, I am afraid many of the readers here have missed out on the hidden nuggets of wisdom. Maybe someone (lika an editor at smartplanet), should expand and explain the terms, or the background facts (such as how the Ricther Scale works), that you have taken its understanding among the public for granted.

Along these same lines, be it IFR or Thorium cycle, the general human psyche do not care for scary names that carry an old stigma. Look at this problem from a pyschological perspective. Give these technologies a NEW UMBRELLA NAME. Something like "Nu2clear" or "Nu Gen 2" Technology. History has shown us that human beings need to be rushed into a new era via symbolic totems.

(And form the proverbial carrot and sticks: Begin to market and subsidize these "NuGen2 technologies" as we outlaw classic "nuclear technologies". Every switch involves labour pains, but always better to move than to suffer afterwards.)