Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNuclear: the worst source of energy, except for all the others.
[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]Opinion: Nuclear energy can be an ally in the fight against climate change
"There is good reason to give nuclear power a fresh look. It can replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants for generating electricity 24/7, avoiding air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions that could contribute to global warming.
According to climatologist James Hansen, longtime head of NASAs Goddard Institute who first brought global warming to the attention of Congress in 1988, nuclear power globally has prevented 1.8 million air-pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have resulted from burning fossil fuels. By mid-century, its use could prevent up to an additional 7 million deaths and 240 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions, Hansen says.
There is a humanitarian imperative to using nuclear power. More than 2 billion people still lack access to electricity for basic needs such as clean water, cooking, sanitation and light. Nuclear power has the most potential to close the gap in energy availability between the worlds rich and its disadvantaged people."
http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/opinion_nuclear_energy_can_be.html
Can Africa Go Nuclear? Energy Demands Battle With Safety Concerns Across The Continent
"Nuclear power generation is ramping up in South Africa, which recently signed a deal with the European Commission to cooperate on research, nuclear materials and equipment supplies. The deal will help bring power to South Africa's remote rural regions -- an initiative the rest of sub-Saharan Africa is eager to emulate.
South Africa is the only sub-Saharan African country with active nuclear power plants. But research-oriented nuclear reactors have been tested in a few other countries -- including Kenya, Ghana and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- and it is clear that there is widespread interest in a nuclear-powered future all across the continent. Uganda, Nigeria, Senegal, Niger and others have expressed interest in building up nuclear expertise within their borders."
http://www.ibtimes.com/can-africa-go-nuclear-energy-demands-battle-safety-concerns-across-continent-1359279
Nuclear power 'would save about $150bn'
"THE inclusion of nuclear power in Australia's electricity generation mix could reduce power prices by 20 per cent and save about $150 billion from now until 2050 in greenhouse gas abatement costs and the health costs of burning fossil fuels, an analysis of future energy options has found.
The findings will be presented to an Australian Technology Sciences and Engineering conference in Sydney today. The two-day conference will include national and international experts, who will discuss the financial, social and economic issues surrounding nuclear energy. The report was based on analysis of two recent models of Australia's future electricity generation mix to 2050, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism's energy white paper (2012), and the CSIRO's web-based modelling tool eFuture."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nuclear-power-would-save-about-150bn/story-e6frg8y6-1226684617877
WovenGems
(776 posts)Nasty for eons. Safe and clean is what is needed. Maybe the British experiment with fission will work.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)within decades - or in as little as a few years?
Perspective.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)really safe place to put it.
Perspective - if time is that short, nuclear facilities seem to take many many many years to build - unless they are just thrown together.
Safety is being pitted against money here.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)for decades. Yucca would be a safer place to put it, but it was killed for political reasons, not safety.
A new, safe nuclear plant takes 5 years to build in France, but about twice as long to build in the U.S. because of regulatory hurdles and anti-nuclear activists who read magazine articles at hearings as a stalling tactic, driving up prices by $1 million/day.
Coal smoke kills 15,000 people in the U.S. every year. Radiation from a nuclear power plant has never killed a single person in the U.S. Coal plants are much cheaper to build and you are correct - safety is being pitted against money.
cprise
(8,445 posts)They just led a successful putsch against Australia's PM Julia Gillard, unseating her. The main reasons for this were her positions on globalization and carbon taxes.
Its lovely they are so quick off the mark publicizing Australia's new policy intentions.