Chernobyl, the silent killer capturated by cameras

[LittleGrizzly]

Well depending on your views global warming could be potentially more harmful...

I though nuclear energy was generally quite safe and not too harmful, i know we have to dispose of the nuclear waste but apart from that i thought there weren't any problems (bar chernobyl)

[Xiahou]

Well depending on your views global warming could be potentially more harmful...

I though nuclear energy was generally quite safe and not too harmful, i know we have to dispose of the nuclear waste but apart from that i thought there weren't any problems (bar chernobyl)

Chernobyl was dangerous by design and its failure was pretty much a worst case scenario even then. No modern reactor could go up like that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope we utilize geothermal, wind and solar power combined to last us until fusion power is perfected and practical 50-100 years from now. Fission power is too messy and dangerous, no matter how well you store it, the thousands of years the stuff has for a half life will outlast any shielding we can probably make for it.

[Xiahou]

I hope we utilize geothermal, wind and solar power combined to last us until fusion power is perfected and practical 50-100 years from now.

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

Fission power is too messy and dangerous, no matter how well you store it, the thousands of years the stuff has for a half life will outlast any shielding we can probably make for it.

Reprocessing cuts the amount of nuclear waste by more than 80%, leaving much less to be stored and separates out much of the highly radioactive elements for reuse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

If used in combination with each other I believe they could be sufficient. Doesn't iceland receive the majority of its energy from geothermal? Also just think of how little energy we would need if every house had solar panels on top of it. Coupled with everyone pitching in to save energy, a lot of homes could actually produce more energy then they use, further increasing the energy supply.

Reprocessing cuts the amount of nuclear waste by more than 80%, leaving much less to be stored and separates out much of the highly radioactive elements for reuse.

But there is still waste. Waste that will still be around for thousands of years. Whether its a ton or a gram, if it escapes its shielding and gets into the groundwater, it can potentially kill a person or people. Especially if its just stored in a mountain and left alone all those years.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

I think britian was aiming for something like 20% by 2012, i think it at least something like 5% of our energy production already... i will need to go figure hunting...

But britian is an island so easy access to water and wind energy, the us is huge so probably not too difficult for them to get a decent percentage either...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

And I disagree. If solar panels were installed on every home and massive solar plants were built in deserts for industry and large skyscrapers, lots of energy could be harvested.

And you can see countries were it is being implemented beyond boutique levels. Like I mentioned, there's Iceland: 70% of energy from geothermal and hydroelectric. Is that boutique? If Iceland can get 70% of its energy from renewable sources, then any country can, its just a matter of scale and public opinion. And from the looks of it, its seems like more and more people are wanting renewable sources of energy and doing away with coal and dirty energy.