It should "pay it back" at some point, shouldn't it?
There is an ecological construction cost in any kind of power plant.
There is an ecological construction cost in any kind of power plant.
Regardless, this is still pretty awesome and my (limited) understanding of India suggests that it has the kind of climate that would really let this shine (pun intended).
Technology has advanced a lot since Homer got out of the lead suit. A lot of nations just refuse to use said technology out of fears that there will be another Chernobyl (human error and poor maintenance) or Fukishima. Fukishima is a very real danger, but partially avoidable through contained systems [0] and a comparable threat for other power plant models)
Yes, you will eventually have some waste. But nowhere near as much as we used to. And there have been quite a few studies (and "common sense") to indicate that greenhouse gas emissions are MUCH MUCH lower [1] than most of the alternatives.
So it is a tradeoff. Obviously solar/wind/geothermal/hydro [2] are the best choices where feasible. But if you can't use those reliably in a manner that is able to provide required energy at all hours of the day (including peak usage), you are stuck with dirty approaches. And of those, nuclear is pretty gosh darned "clean".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_...
[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-e...
[2] Hydro actually tends to cause a lot of problems for wildlife and the like. Not aware of any drawbacks for the other three though
I'm from Germany and since our Chancellor closed down this disastrous technology, those who were running it try to get rid of that shiny radioactive material and they can't (instead they are creating sub companies who's products are green energy). Now Germany and me will have to pay for it to disappear. Maybe France will take it. With their old and crappy plants some more leakage from the processing plants won't show.
Or maybe we can sell it to China. At some point they may pay a lot for it. Or we just wait for Trump to start a new cold war. I've read this stuff is good for weapons.
Unfortunately our Country is not as big as the US or Russia so the usual dig and forget won't work.
Wow...I mean..this technology was good at some point in our history for different reasons. But that point has passed. We did not come up with good solutions for the plants or the waste. I don't see any reason to INVEST in this. It's like investing in coal again.
Because your government said reprocessing was not allowed, there is now an excess of nuclear material. Ergo, reprocessing is a bad technology
Thank you for illustrating my point. The tech is sound. Getting past the fearmongers and actually using it is the problem. We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere. We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it... and then get yelled at for having excess waste.
Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject. Yes, a lot of this hasn't been tested at scale (in large part because politicians and Activists won't let anyone) but they have been researched VERY heavily, tested at varying scales, and are a more viable alternative than anything else right now. But because there is a "nuclear" in the name, it is inherently evil and wrong.
> We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere.
Why should you? The same thing has been said about those xx years old ones who threaten our lives east and west of Germany while we have so much green energy that we have to sell it.
> We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it...
Yeah but those ways suck. They are bad for the environment and they cost a hell lot of money those who ran the plants don't want to pay for: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kosten-atommuell-101.html
> Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject.
I got the fallout of Tszarnobyl in east Poland as a child and Fukushima on a trip in Tokyo. Spare your idiotic propaganda about how safe this last century technology is supposed to be. It's dead and the sooner the nations who still base their electricity output on it recognize this, the better for the whole humankind.
Because your government said reprocessing was not allowed because they base their decisions on decades old technology and ignore any advances, there is now an excess of nuclear material. Ergo, reprocessing is a bad technology
Aside from that: If anyone who can avoid calling people "idiotic" and cares to read (I addressed the Chernobyl and Fukishima issues) wishes to continue discussion, feel free. I would love to. But I don't really see a point with this person though.
You've adressed Fukushima and Czarnobyl? Are you kidding me? You swiped that away saying one was a human error like this would never happen again and the other could be solved by some technology that didn't even come up with a prototype somewhere in the past and the development on it stopped 2015. It's in the link you've posted!
And you wonder why word like "idiotic" come up...besides the fact that you've started the insulting first of course.