Climate change, the developing world, and nuclear energy

[Thylacine]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0805bac2-937d-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af.html#axzz3sgTDAkf7

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34929578

So as far as I can see we have two major issues facing us at this juncture of world history: climate change, and energy poverty in the developing world.

India is going to increase it's carbon emissions hugely as it develops, but how do we allow developing countries to develop without catastrophic climate change.

My personal opinion is that we need to shift to nuclear. The reality is China, the USA, and India all use coal, and lots of it to produce their power. Renewables cannot provide the cheap energy the world needs - yet.

Nuclear is a good, zero emission, and increasingly safe form of power. We are not going to run out of uranium any time soon, and it can even be reprocessed to create more power, turning the waste into glass leaves it stable for 1000s of years.

The reality is R&D into nuclear ended in the 70s, the reactors are old designs, we should be investing in safe, cheap, and environmentally kind nuclear energy.

This house moves that nuclear energy is future, and provides a good stop gap option as renewable technology continues to develop... GO!

[sqishy]

So as far as I can see we have two major issues facing us at this juncture of world history[...]
I see many issues, not two, but I'll go with yours here.

[...]climate change, and energy poverty in the developing world.

Both serious problems, yes.



India is going to increase it's carbon emissions hugely as it develops, but how do we allow developing countries to develop without catastrophic climate change.

My personal opinion is that we need to shift to nuclear. The reality is China, the USA, and India all use coal, and lots of it to produce their power. Renewables cannot provide the cheap energy the world needs - yet.

Nuclear is a good, zero emission, and increasingly safe form of power. We are not going to run out of uranium any time soon, and it can even be reprocessed to create more power, turning the waste into glass leaves it stable for 1000s of years.

The reality is R&D into nuclear ended in the 70s, the reactors are old designs, we should be investing in safe, cheap, and environmentally kind nuclear energy.

This house moves that nuclear energy is future, and provides a good stop gap option as renewable technology continues to develop... GO!

Active research is being done into nuclear fusion, which would be cleaner, more efficient and safer than fission. I don't know exaclty how far they are into it, but they have built fusion reactors and have achieved controlled fusion. They need to have more energy coming out than going in, though, which is the current problem that I know of.

Fission is much better than the carbon fuels still - and hydrogen-cell cars would be much better than petrol/diesel cars.

I am all open to having large solar panel fields in inhospitable deserts at lower altitudes - those already operational have huge outputs of energy.

We also have tidal, wind and wave power which can be used - some of the extreme weather to come may possibly be usable for this (ironically).

[Uniquemind]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0805bac2-937d-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af.html#axzz3sgTDAkf7

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34929578

So as far as I can see we have two major issues facing us at this juncture of world history: climate change, and energy poverty in the developing world.

India is going to increase it's carbon emissions hugely as it develops, but how do we allow developing countries to develop without catastrophic climate change.

My personal opinion is that we need to shift to nuclear. The reality is China, the USA, and India all use coal, and lots of it to produce their power. Renewables cannot provide the cheap energy the world needs - yet.

Nuclear is a good, zero emission, and increasingly safe form of power. We are not going to run out of uranium any time soon, and it can even be reprocessed to create more power, turning the waste into glass leaves it stable for 1000s of years.

The reality is R&D into nuclear ended in the 70s, the reactors are old designs, we should be investing in safe, cheap, and environmentally kind nuclear energy.

This house moves that nuclear energy is future, and provides a good stop gap option as renewable technology continues to develop... GO!

I'm not for nuclear given the design of the current and most cost effective nuclear power plant.

Look at what happened to Japan when you mixed climate change and earthquakes + nuclear power plant designs, you got failure after failure of the safeguards until you got a meltdown.

In theory I support it though if done 100% right, with safety put first, not profit.

[sqishy]

I'm not for nuclear given the design of the current and most cost effective nuclear power plant.

Look at what happened to Japan when you mixed climate change and earthquakes + nuclear power plant designs, you got failure after failure of the safeguards until you got a meltdown.

In theory I support it though if done 100% right, with safety put first, not profit.

I think you misunderstand how nuclear fusion works. Nuclear fission is the risker one, yes.

[Uniquemind]

I think you misunderstand how nuclear fusion works. Nuclear fission is the risker one, yes.

Fusion I am for, but as far as I know nobody has figured out how to build and master fusion, and only certain geographical locations could theoretically handle a fusion based power plant.


So I was speaking about fission since that's what societies end up selling their populaces.

[sqishy]

Fusion I am for, but as far as I know nobody has figured out how to build and master fusion, and only certain geographical locations could theoretically handle a fusion based power plant.

True, fusion reactos may need geological stability or else things can break and it'll shut down, etc.


So I was speaking about fission since that's what societies end up selling their populaces.

For now, yes.

[phuckphace]

just think of how many millions of years our current fossil fuel reserves would last if our population wasn't fuckhuge and addicted to growth

also imagine how much less pollution there would be in the absence of same. imagine a world where we didn't need to spend gorillions to come up with the next newest way to extract primordial isotopes from the Earth's crust harnessed using esoteric scifi voodoo to shit out the precious energy needed to power the Super Bowl Sunday broadcast and stadium lighting

they say we're in a future "technological dark age" right now, because most of our knowledge isn't preserved in a lasting way (ones and zeros). archaeologists of the future would no doubt be relieved to discover that none of it was worth preserving anyway

[Stephan]

Actually, little did you know, both China and and even more so India have already spearheaded a nuclear campaign delving into thorium powered nuclear reactors - molten salt reactors. In fact, president Nixon shutdown all research to Oakridge lab TN, in the 1950s where they experimented and documented a working thorium molten salt reactor for 6 years.

Nuclear power is the way to go with a doubt, but proponents argue thorium and other nuclear energy methods, as uncharted territory, full of unknown, but the research is down. I feel like it the media's portrayal of nuclear energy shedding fear into the people of our society.