We have a huge ongoing research program in nuclear energy, including participation in ITER. Lots of money for fission too even though uranium won't last.
Military propulsion at sea is a great use of nuclear power, and in addition to the navy starting to use biofuels, it may use its reactors to synthesize jet fuel.
I think we are headed for a period of conservatism once we have averted the climate crisis. A renewable energy system is pretty stable, and probably will behave like the roman road system in terms of self perpetuation. The green party tenth key value will likely be a part of that conservatism, and that says what you can't safely dispose of must be unmade. Truly safe disposal of nuclear waste seems unfeasible, at least according to SCOTUS.
I think we'll use accelerators to shift the most problematic fission products into stable or quickly decaying isotopes. Renewable energy will run the accelerators. Hopefully, this occurs at current sites so we are not transporting the waste. But security or environmental issues may intervene in some former reactor sites.
I think of nuclear energy as borrowed energy. I think we'll have to repay it in transmuting the waste into stable isotopes. Fortunately, it looks as though renewable energy will be up to the job.
Solar cells are made of sand. Not really a rare substance. Tellurium is available in vast quantities on the ocean bottom, so that is not a constraint either. Fuel-free energy is really the only Real Energy. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/
Nuclear can't grow. There is only 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of consumption. Also, it saturates cooling resources. France has to shut plants down frequently owing to inadequate cooling. The US also does so. Nuclear's role is very limited.
Nuclear plants also saturate cooling capacity. Miami is now facing saline intrusion owing to cooling issues at Turkey Point. It is a very inefficient awkward technology.
First Solar's CEO was quoted last year saying to total installed cost for their utility scale systems would be under $1/watt next year. And, in detectors, CdTe is quite rad-hard except for the issue of thermal neutron activation of the cadmium. Not clear that is a problem for solar panels.
Silicon solar cells degrade with time owing to cosmic ray damage. They experience more rapid degadation on orbit and the same will be true in the area around Chernobyl. It is possible that more amorphous CdTe cells would degrade more slowly owing to radiation, and in any case they are on a regimented recycling schedule owing to the cadmium content. So long as they don't them selves become low level waste through contamination, CdTe panels might be the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
About radioactivity from coal. In fact, fossil fuel burning cuts radiation load. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
We have a huge ongoing research program in nuclear energy, including participation in ITER. Lots of money for fission too even though uranium won't last.
Military propulsion at sea is a great use of nuclear power, and in addition to the navy starting to use biofuels, it may use its reactors to synthesize jet fuel.
We'd be out of uranium in your scenario.
Gallup interprets this as being about better alternatives.
There is progress on electric trucks. http://insideevs.com/tevva-mot...
First Solar's CEO was quoted last year saying they will be below $1/watt fully installed by next year.
Tata, India's largest car maker, is going in for electric vehicles. http://m.carandbike.com/news/t...
They worked out a big discount on LEDs, which should help them too.
I think we are headed for a period of conservatism once we have averted the climate crisis. A renewable energy system is pretty stable, and probably will behave like the roman road system in terms of self perpetuation. The green party tenth key value will likely be a part of that conservatism, and that says what you can't safely dispose of must be unmade. Truly safe disposal of nuclear waste seems unfeasible, at least according to SCOTUS.
I think we'll use accelerators to shift the most problematic fission products into stable or quickly decaying isotopes. Renewable energy will run the accelerators. Hopefully, this occurs at current sites so we are not transporting the waste. But security or environmental issues may intervene in some former reactor sites.
I think of nuclear energy as borrowed energy. I think we'll have to repay it in transmuting the waste into stable isotopes. Fortunately, it looks as though renewable energy will be up to the job.
Overloaded spent fuel pools are a danger in many places.
You may not be aware of this, but neither wind nor solar power use fuel.
Solar cells are made of sand. Not really a rare substance. Tellurium is available in vast quantities on the ocean bottom, so that is not a constraint either. Fuel-free energy is really the only Real Energy. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/
Turns out 100% renewable is the best mix. You can even use it to restore buffalo habitat. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
Nuclear can't grow. There is only 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of consumption. Also, it saturates cooling resources. France has to shut plants down frequently owing to inadequate cooling. The US also does so. Nuclear's role is very limited.
Nuclear plants also saturate cooling capacity. Miami is now facing saline intrusion owing to cooling issues at Turkey Point. It is a very inefficient awkward technology.
First Solar's CEO was quoted last year saying to total installed cost for their utility scale systems would be under $1/watt next year. And, in detectors, CdTe is quite rad-hard except for the issue of thermal neutron activation of the cadmium. Not clear that is a problem for solar panels.
Keeping the waste secure might be an issue too. Just because people don't go there does not mean terrorists won't.
These terrorists seem to kill themselves as part of their tactics.
Nuclear does kill a lot of people.
Silicon solar cells degrade with time owing to cosmic ray damage. They experience more rapid degadation on orbit and the same will be true in the area around Chernobyl. It is possible that more amorphous CdTe cells would degrade more slowly owing to radiation, and in any case they are on a regimented recycling schedule owing to the cadmium content. So long as they don't them selves become low level waste through contamination, CdTe panels might be the way to go.
Deliver to their Senator Inhofe so he can throw it on the Senate floor.
Do you know who Rice is?