Ever since the first commercial reactors have started to produce electricity for the grid in the 1950’s (um, about 70 years ago now…) we keep hearing how nuclear is the clean, green power of the future. No emissions, no limits, just the infinite power of the atom. Even M. King Hubbert, the renowned petroleum geologist who pointed out the reality of
Another reason, waste. Don't worry US, UK, FR, JP - Australia's got this. The infrastructure is built, and our "decision" to build nuclear powered submarines assures the public opposition to hosting an international waste dump will decay faster than the half life of 239Pu. How long before Greenpeace, or the WWF publicly declare nuclear power is the best solution to climate change? Tick, tick, tick. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/from-darwin-down-no-longer-theory-20020907-gdfm2v.html
My feeling is that everyone active in the business of « energy » recognizes the fact that « nuclear fission » was, is and remains an intermediate solution to convert « heat into electricity », precisely for the reasons you exposed. The issue related to long term byproducts that need storage and surveillance will not become more acute if already built reactors stay 1 or 10 more years into service. The bottom line will be the question our Children or Grand-children will ask: « why the heck should we care (and pay for) about a waste area that brings « nothing ». This is, in my modest opinion, the main reason why it is wise to accept to avoid building many more « fission reactors ». Already now, in many (tech) universities, the nuclear ing. cursus has been removed from the program. Thus, in 20 years, basic know how will be missing. This will nevertheless be the heritage our children / grand children will get.
This sort of energy, or any global type, cannot save anyone … Your totally off the mark, because all such wonderful technology is about serving the industrial civilization and all it’s control systems, and not people.
Thank you B🙏
Another reason, waste. Don't worry US, UK, FR, JP - Australia's got this. The infrastructure is built, and our "decision" to build nuclear powered submarines assures the public opposition to hosting an international waste dump will decay faster than the half life of 239Pu. How long before Greenpeace, or the WWF publicly declare nuclear power is the best solution to climate change? Tick, tick, tick. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/from-darwin-down-no-longer-theory-20020907-gdfm2v.html
https://www.kbr.com/en/insights-news/press-release/kbr-deliver-innovative-solutions-support-uk-nuclear-infrastructure
Thank you for your article.
My feeling is that everyone active in the business of « energy » recognizes the fact that « nuclear fission » was, is and remains an intermediate solution to convert « heat into electricity », precisely for the reasons you exposed. The issue related to long term byproducts that need storage and surveillance will not become more acute if already built reactors stay 1 or 10 more years into service. The bottom line will be the question our Children or Grand-children will ask: « why the heck should we care (and pay for) about a waste area that brings « nothing ». This is, in my modest opinion, the main reason why it is wise to accept to avoid building many more « fission reactors ». Already now, in many (tech) universities, the nuclear ing. cursus has been removed from the program. Thus, in 20 years, basic know how will be missing. This will nevertheless be the heritage our children / grand children will get.
This sort of energy, or any global type, cannot save anyone … Your totally off the mark, because all such wonderful technology is about serving the industrial civilization and all it’s control systems, and not people.