PV Gap

Bertha Said:

compare each from of alternative energy?

We Answered:

I assume you mean which is best

Nuclear!!!
Details and evidence at the end
1. it's cheap and green

2. Its safe

3. We won’t run out of fuel

1. Due to their reliance on nuclear power [(79% of their energy is generated by nuclear, under rational legislation) only good decision that govt ever mad], France's carbon emissions per kWh are one of the lowest in Europe; less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time, also new types of generators are being made, with initial deliveries slated to begin in the second half of 2013, that cost around 50 million and produce the power for around 20,000 average American homes. Assuming breeder reactors and thorium recycling is used, an although harvesting uranium from the oceans is more costly, due to the wonders of economics, if the price of uranium increases by 100%, the price of the energy only increases by 5%. In addition, when the thorium recycling is taken into account, you only have about a cubic meter of waste, which will only last about 30 years; if you get the Plutonium out of the waste stream, and recycle it back to the reactor to
Be burned; then the repository doesn't have to survive for thousands of years. That's
Because the longest lived fission product of any consequence is Cesium-137 which has
A half-life of 30 years compared to the 24,000 year half life of Plutonium-239.

2. in the entire history of nuclear power, there have only been two accidents; three mile island, in which they were no deaths, and Chernobyl (allegedly also a weapons plant), in which piss-poor engineering and improperly followed safety protocols in a second world country contributed to a fire in the graphite core. What happened was that the reactor's graphite core caught fire after the safety systems had been turned off for experimental work to be conducted, and the resultant explosion ejected radioactive material due to the lack of a comprehensive containment structure. 56 people died as a direct result (47 accident workers and 7 children from thyroid cancer. other deaths that were originally attributed to the radiation have since been attributed to poor response, living conditions after evac, and psychosomatic conditions. (note, not all parties agree on secondary deaths, thought the numbers are never above 20,000. wild-eyed early estimates were shown to be inaccurate and based on faulty science, for which no evidence has been found to this day
even ignoring the hormesis theory (which is gaining non the Non Linear Threshold model) coal plants produce triple the radiation of a nuclear plant, and calculations show that there would have to be a meltdown once every two weeks for nuclear to equal the deaths of the coal oil and gas industries

3. Again assuming breeder reactors and thorium recycling are used, we would have enough fuel for hundreds of years. Include ocean harvesting into the mix, and you have what is effectively an unlimited fuel source. Besides, by the next century, we may well have fusion, which uses a different fuel source again (we achieved energy breakeven in the seventies, before funding was cut (I hate Carter))


I have tried to only include reasons for, not rebuttals against arguments made by the other side

If you want these, or want to have a discussion or debate about it, email me.

For any further information, email me
For derogatory comments or hate mail: P
Email me at mathir25@yahoo.com.