What's the problem with nuclear power?

[chequita guevara]

Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

[Spiffor]

I am a big supporter of nuclear power for ecological reasons. I think the German greens are completely out of the loop, as they shutted down Germany's nuclear power and replaced it with stinking coal and oil plants.

There's a reason France has the cleanest air of Europe - and that's because we have almost no fossil power plants.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep... nuclear power is MUCH better for the air quality than coal or oil burning plants. Unfortunately they also cost a lot, which really doesn't make it too feasible for a lot of companies. Now you could go the France route and have the government help out, but I'm not sure how well that would go over.

[chequita guevara]

Untill we have a working space elevator, nukes are not a good idea.

[Spiffor]

However, one should not forget that nuclear power plant is not a satisfying long-term solution. It is expected that uranium will deplete faster than fossil resources (in this century actually), and nuclear waste will pose a problem at some point. Not to mention the risk of meltdown that cannot be forgotten (at the end of 1999, a huge storm has wrecked havoc in France, and among other things, seriously threatened an old nuclear plant near Bordeaux).

I favor nuclear power only until we can find efficient sustainable power, such as efficient solar power plants, wind power, tidal power etc. Money has to be poured in research, because power and pollution will become increasingly important questions in the coming decades, especially as newly developed countries will pollute like hell.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Now you could go the France route and have the government help out, but I'm not sure how well that would go over.

You mean, politically, or economically?

Economically, EDF is the biggest electricity company in Europe, and IIRC, in the world. It provides a rather cheap electricity, and I guess it is competitive, since we sell loads of electricity to other countries.

Unfortunately, we are now selling this gem for a bargain to the capital. But IIRC, the State will remain involved in the maintenance of nuclear power plants, because we don't feel like having a privately-made Chernobyl.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How much weight would we be lifting for dilution and containment, compared to the weight of radioactive material?

Ah, but that wouldn't matter - since we would have a limitless source of nuclear energy!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean, politically, or economically?

Well the politics of the economics . Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

And you wonder why everybody thinks Americans are stupid

[East Street Trader]

The de-commissioning costs for nuclear power stations are so very large I cannot believe the power produced can be comparable in price.

If you leave ecological damage out of account.

If you count it in, then it gets beyond me to balance off all the factors as regards nuclear plants.

Fossil fuels, though, have plainly got to go. Only, I think, the USA clings to the hope that fossil fuels can continue to be burned up in vast quantities with impunity.

They elect weak politicians without the strength of character or mind to lead. So the "leaders" are led by their fear of what they think will be unpopular with the electorate.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am a big supporter of nuclear power for ecological reasons. I think the German greens are completely out of the loop, as they shutted down Germany's nuclear power and replaced it with stinking coal and oil plants.

There's a reason France has the cleanest air of Europe - and that's because we have almost no fossil power plants.

I've heard though that the gulf of Biscaye (sp?) is alarmingly radio-active. And it's not much fun swimming offshore La Haye either.

And if the skies over France are the cleanest in Europe *cough* Paris *cough*, it has more to do with France 'exporting' its pollution to, lets say, Scandinavia, then that France has such a great environmental stance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you wonder why everybody thinks Americans are stupid

Well why should the government get involved in electricity generation?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

yea, water vapor is a green house gas suprisingly enough. There is 30 times more of it in the atmosphere then C02.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by germanos
I've heard though that the gulf of Biscaye (sp?) is alarmingly radio-active. And it's not much fun swimming offshore La Haye either.

Indeed, and that's why nuclear power plants are located in remote areas. I never said it was perfectly clean. But the dirty is localized (don't forget La Haye treats nuclear waste from abroad, which included Germany, and still includes Japan... I would guess most of the world's civilian nuclear waste goes through there - pretty much low pollution for such energy, don't you think?)

I wonder how much the temperature would rise if all the electic pollution ending up in La Haye was produced with fossil fuels instead. That could be interesting...

And if the skies over France are the cleanest in Europe *cough* Paris *cough*, it has more to do with France 'exporting' its pollution to, lets say, Scandinavia, then that France has such a great environmental stance.

France isn't the only oceanic, windy country in Europe...

This has definitely to do with our energitic stance, which has considerable advantages regarding air pollution: much inner-city traffic is performed with electric mass transit, almost all of our electric production is non-fossil, inter-city traffic is significantly made with electric trains. Our biggest flaw in this regard is freight transport, which is almost uniquely transported by trucks.

[East Street Trader]

France's stance has a lot to do with having no coal or oil and a Gaulist determination to be dependant on nobody for anything.

But there is little wrong with sturdy independance and if it happens to turn out that you have got ahead of the global warming game then great, the world can benefit from the expertise you have built up.

But the ecological case has to take account of de-commissioning and you are not ahead of that game. We are currently de-commissioning our first generation of nuclear plants and no private company would touch the task. Nor could society ever rely on anything which has the ability just to go finacially bust for such a thing. So de-commissioning will always have to be underwritten by government and the tax payer.

It may turn out to be prohibitive.

Simply learning to use less power is a simple thing we can all do. I commend that as a good start.