It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Clean coal or otherwise, nukes aren't clean by any means. 1) they do generate "greenhouse gases" in the mining and production of the fuel and 2) they create a waste that cannot be mitigated for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions
It is not "clean" by any means. It is merely a version of highly concentrated sequestration of a catastrophically dangerous by-product which is distributed throughout the globe in cooling ponds at every single plant world-wide. No one has any idea what to do with this stuff. The best we have come up with is to bury it as deep as we can, hope for the best, and make it a subsequent generation's problem.
So, while coal is by no means "clean"; nuclear power is a "clean" facade.
You're right, nuclear isn't totally clean either. There's a saying I like in politics and I use the principal behind it often when evaluating something: "We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Nuclear plants aren't perfect by they represent a huge step up from our other options.
In terms of greenhouse gasses they're about equal. In the US nuclear is a bit above solar, wind, and geothermal but if we took advantage of newer technologies it would be below. These types of switches take time however (we're in the process of it now) so I'm ok with just calling this average equal. Either way, all of these types of power generation are so much lower than coal that a couple more tons of co2 here or there in either direction doesn't matter. They all represent substantial improvement.
The waste issue is far bigger, the thing is though newer generation nuclear plants use 100% of the fuel rather than 1% of it like ours do. If we switched to the newer technology (again this will take time, but there's not even a slight move towards it in the US) the result would be an amount of waste equal to 1% of what we're creating today for the same energy output. That doesn't solve the problem by any stretch, but it makes significant progress to reduce the scale of the problem and that's something I could live with, for now. If we can reduce waste generation by 99%, maybe at the end of the 50 year lifespan of new nuclear plants we build today we could have a better solution for getting rid of the waste. In 50-75 years we're probably looking at technologies like space elevators existing which would allow us to send the waste into Jupiter or Sol without risking atmospheric contamination. Really, that's just a high tech way of burying it, but given our current knowledge I think that's an ok solution.
Oh, well that is better then. There is only half as much harmful radiation as there was a few years ago.
Except the OP is stating they are NOT under control
Oh, well it is OK then, because we were stupid before we can also be stupid now. Nothing to see here; move on.
Ok, so there ARE more than the 3 mentioned above. Also, link or it didn't happen on the not significant amount quote.
It is worth noticing that in December 2011, the Tokyo Electric Power Company reported an accidental leakage from the evaporative condensation apparatus at Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP of approximately 150L of water containing 11GBq of 89Sr and 15GBq of 90Sr. In fact, activities of 90Sr measured at the discharge site in December 2011 exceeded 137Cs concentrations. Thus the 90Sr/137Cs ratio that we measured 15 cannot be used to predict the total amounts of 90Sr released through direct ocean discharge after December 2011
2014 is now btw. So, bad news I suppose.
I agree that we need to make better use of technology and I believe this is the point I have been making. The tech to utilize thorium has been around for decades. Unfortunately that didn't help increase our nuke stockpile, thus it was buried. Even today we lag behind others such as India and the Scandanavians who are working on ways to utilize Thorium. I believe India has a Thorium reactor coming online soon. So, the politicans, corrputocrats and profiteers continue to sell us down the river.
While it is true that someday we may be able to use space elevators or even Star Trek-like transporters to move the spent fuel off the planet that is kicking the can down the road and is a false argument. It is also true that someday we could also invent perpetual motion machines or transport ourselves into a clean parallel dimension where these problems are already solved. This potential or possibility doesn't make any of these avenues any more real than any other theoretical science fiction solution. The fact of the matter is that today we have thousands of reactors across the planet all of which are ticking time-bombs and they will be for hundreds of thousands or millions of years depending on the fuel type and we have absolutely no idea what to do with them.