Agreed! This is from my blog...
There is a power source that is Co2 free and could supply abundant, reliable 'baseload' energy in summer or winter, day or night. But you've probably been emotionally programmed by disinformation to reject it outright. The 3 biggest myths about this power source are that it is dangerous, expensive, and leaves waste FOREVER. Instead it is already one of the SAFEST sources of large scale power in the world, is the only AFFORDABLE way to cut emissions, and the waste is now a FUEL that could run the world FOREVER! I am of course talking about nuclear power, and the fantastic potential of the 'New Nukes' otherwise known as Generation IV reactors coming our way.
1: SAFE
SAFEST YESTERDAY: Even yesteryears's old reactors have *already* demonstrated that nuclear power has the best safety record of any large scale energy system! As George Monbiot says: "Coal kills more people when it goes right than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. In fact coal kills more people every week than nuclear power has in the entire history of its deployment."
George Monbiot – The Heart of the Matter
SAFER TECHNOLOGIES TODAY: Today's Gen3.5 reactors would have *easily* survived the Japanese tsunami that took out their external cooling pumps. They not only have far better cooling systems, but even if all of those are destroyed in some freak accident, the reactor cores themselves have 'passive physics' built in so that they cool themselves down. For example, let's look at Neutron Leak. Neutron Leak turns the reactor fuel rods into a last-ditch safety feature. If ALL the 'external' cooling systems failed (and this would be remarkable!), the fuel rods would normally start to over heat, risking a reaction. But today's fuel rod technology means they can be designed to expand as they over heat. As the metal rods expand they leak the neutrons essential to keeping the reaction going. Neutron Leak means the reaction fizzle's out, and the reactor self cools. Even Homer Simpson couldn't break it!'
SAFER TOMORROW: And as we move into Gen4 reactors there are more safety systems coming. Basically, Corporations realise that a melt down costs a lot of MONEY. They'd rather avoid all that, thank you very much! For more on passive safety systems, please read this.
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SAFER SITES: Nuclear Energy Parks could be cheaply* built out in the Australian outback safely away from any population areas. If some weird disastrous fluke managed to take one of these out, new reactors would be built 500 kilometres upwind and we'd quarantine a tiny fraction of our VAST deserts for a few hundred years. We'd hardly notice it. EG: I haven't been inconvenienced by the Woomera Testing Facility being off-limits, and it is twice the size of Tasmania!
(*Power lines to a desert Nuclear Park would still be vastly cheaper than the power lines for a Renewable grid. Wind and Solar require a continent wide super-grid to bring the power from our coasts and deserts to where we live).
Basically, banning SAFE modern nukes because of Chernobyl or Fukushima is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenburg.
2: AFFORDABLE AND ESSENTIAL
There are only a few places on earth like Greenland and Tasmania with enough geothermal or hydro to run reliable Renewables. The rest of the world has abundant wind and solar Renewables, but these should be called Unreliables because of their daily and seasonal variations. We need reliable base load power generation because *nothing* can store Unreliables cheaply enough!
Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of modern climate science, says nuclear power is the only way we'll solve climate change. He says believing in renewables alone is akin to "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid | BraveNewClimate
If we listen to him on the problem of Global Warming, why not also on the solution?According to his peer-reviewed network 'The Science Council for Global Initiatives' (SCGI) the unreliable nature of renewable technology is not solved by any storage system as they are all far, far too expensive. They are hypothetically possible but economically impossible. Instead of Renewables they should be called Unreliables.
SCGI - James Hansen
Tom Blees (President of the SCGI) has made his book freely available in PDF form.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
IF something better comes along we can shift to it then. But we have to act now to prevent a climate catastrophe. We cannot let wishful thinking daydream our way to disaster. Renewables are too expensive. They're only cheap if ignore the coal-fired grid backing our systems. EG: If you stick some Solar PV on your roof and over 30 years measure the cost / output, it's wonderful. But that ignores the fact that the Solar PV is only giving you a third of your power each day. The rest relies on a coal-fired power grid. Then there's seasonal fluctuations where the solar input is really low on dark wintery days. Read Professor Barry Brook on the cost of trying to make solar and wind 'base load', that is, reliable 24/7. Unreliables might be technically feasible but they are economically impossible. Dreams and good intentions with renewables are not going to solve the Global Warming crisis. Only hard nosed, tried and true engineering solutions can save us.
Renewable Limits | BraveNewClimate
3: FOREVER FUEL
Tomorrows reactor's will eat nuclear waste! Generation IV nukes are based on known physics from over 300 Reactor Years running Breeder Reactors.
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have demonstrated the physics in reactors like the EBR 2. We know the physics and the engineering. We've already done this!
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(The EBR2 was one of the world's first Integral Fast Reactors, see below).
GenIV reactors are slowly being commercialised. The only delays are in commercialising some cheaper systems and materials.
Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Electric's S-PRISM is being designed small and modular so that components can be put on a production line. This will become an assembly line, mass produced nuclear reactor! The components are then be trucked to site for fast assembly. Putting nukes on the production line will raise safety standards and sink costs!
S-PRISM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The S-PRISM is just one example of a whole category of GenIV reactors called the Integral Fast Reactor
Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Integral Fast Reactor's convert today's nuclear 'waste' into fuel. Instead of being a problem, nuclear waste is THE solution! Some countries already have enough 'waste' (unused fuel) to run them for 500 years!
Nuclear power AND renewables can do the job. If we let nukes just have the majority of the base load share (say 60% or 70% of the daily requirements of energy on the grid) then renewables can probably handle the rest. Anything higher puts stress on the grid.
Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As mountains rise and continents move the weather grinds uranium dust back down into the ocean faster than we could use it. This is how Gen4 nukes could run the world for a few hundred million years on the uranium in sea-water.