Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter
Well, not really. Solar energy and wind energy can both be classified as the safest forms. With them, you don't have to worry about catastrophic and potentially damning meltdowns or the possibility of everything within a 20 mile zone either being vaporized in an instant/radiated to the point of death.
Also, you've got to dispose of the nuclear waste once you accumulate it, which is a tricky and dangerous process.
|
Where is the possibility of everything in a 20-mile radius being vaporized coming from? Did someone drop a nuclear warhed on the reactor?
Nuclear energy is a lot safer than most people realize. Unfortunately, there is so much unfounded fear that the cost of building and maintaining reactors has skyrocketed ever since that dumb "China Syndrome" movie, primarily because of insurance costs and stupidly redundant numbers of back-up systems.
As far as "disastrous consequences" go let's look at the worst nuclear accident in history, namely "Chernobyl". The initial deleterious effects of this disaster are not cause for lasting concern today, as the contaminated area is relatively small and people even live in the abandoned zone.
This is especially impressive when you consider that it was a Soviet reactor and the Soviets seemed to be unable to do much of anything without suffering a nuclear mishap.
Another common misconception is the likelyhood of a meltdown. You would be surprised how many people think that means the reactor blows up like a nuclear bomb. Not only is this not possible, but a meltdown even in the correct sense of the word is nearly impossible. You would really have to put some effort into making it happen. The fuel rods have to become host to an uncontrolled reaction, which means the control rods, and the emergency control rods, and the manual control rods would all have to fail, which is tricky when you consider that if they lose power or connection with the plant's systems they all go right into the reactor core. Then, the reaction has to be uncontrolled by any means until the rods become hot enough to actually melt through the containment vessel and the ground below it until they reach the water table.
Although technically possible, it is essentially a non-concern.
The greatest danger comes from the reactor core and its containment vessel being breached, or from improper handling of waste. Either of these scenarios is likely to cause only local contamination, and though expensive to clean up, serves as a powerful motivator for companies to prevent that from happening in the first place.
Our main problem is where to put all the nuclear waste. Considering how much waste goes into landfills and the like, when coupled with the very small amount of waste that reactors produce, this is not so much a problem of space as it is of NIMBY. Solution; just store it where nobody lives. Yes, they tried this with the Yucca mountain facility and met with stiff resistance but that sentiment was fueled by irrational fear and an inexplicable love of some obscure desert region's largely useless fauna.
Finally, nuclear power is very economical when compared to "clean" sources. The only potential rival would be hydroelectric power from a dam, and even that requires a tremendous initial investment. Solar and wind power can't even be classified as competitors because of their ridiculous construction and maintenance costs. In addition, all of the above require specific locations and or environmental characteristics, denying them the flexibility of nukes.