I am pro-nuclear for the most part, but I think there are drawbacks. The most serious I think is the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear power becomes more commonplace (and we know were going to need to power it provides) the risk of this technology falling into the wrong hand increases. This is a BIG problem with nuclear.

That was a good article in Scientific American, Warspite.
Here is a link to the TED Talks lecture where Bill Gates gives his support to a Travel Wave Reactor. Sounds like an interesting project.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

Interesting talk there spyman, there are so many potentially ideal nuclear technologies on the horizon that it's good to get such influential backing for this one, but I hope we move towards existing nuclear tech for now while researching in the advanced nuclear tech at the same time rather than put too much faith in the "20 years for R&D and 20 for deployment" plan

Saw a recent article in Wired that described the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel instead of Uranium 235/238. It's still fission, but the end products are harder to make into bombs than just starting from unprocessed Uranium. The reactors are much smaller and meltdowns are impossible. Shutting down the reactor was easy, restarting it very difficult.

In any case, politically it's a hard sell unless the polar ice caps disappear. Oh. . . maybe that's why it's interesting to think nuclear again.

"unless" -> "until"
Do you know what the relative efficiencies would be? I would suggest it's probably more expensive to run?

@positron www.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

@Thucydides I was in my 20s during the Three Mile incident and have alot extended family in E Penn. The media turned it into a circus, and nearly started a panic. Afterwards antinuc groups used every abnormal plant and animal birth to scare people, even though the numbers show there has been no increase in the rates. Besides I'm told the third eye comes in handy when texting and driving.

I was part of the anti-nuke movement in the 1980s and still think its a bad idea. THe bottom line is that no matter how good the technology is, there is always the possibility for human error. You will never be able to make it 100% foolproof from acciedent, and the consequence of accidents are so catastrophic, that it is never going to be worth the risk.

@Crazyter - there is lots of potential for accidents in any form of power generation. You are right nuclear power can never be 100% perfect, but it really is an amazing power source and is very efficient in terms of [infrastructure => long term output].

Currently nuclear also represents the cleanest and most local source of mass power. Or would you prefer more coal or natural gas plants? I am a proponent of clean energy should research, but currently the alternatives just aren't there on the scale they should be.

*that "should" in "clean energy should research" isn't supposed to be there.

I'd probably have been against it in the 80s too, but I think a whole host of things have changed since then making it more reliable & necessary.

It has been such a long time since a significant accident even with the aging gen II reactors, at the very least you have to draw some distinctions between the different types of reactors and not throw the baby out with the bathwater imho

"I would prefer to living in no danger whatsoever than near a nuclear reactor, but I would prefer that over living near a Love Canal, or near a plant producing Methyl isocynate."~paraphrase of Isaac Asimov. There are always what ifs, but you need to take into account the likely hood of it happening. Three Mile Island was in away a success, because inspite all the things that where wrong and went wrong, the containment vessel was not breached.

Not only are there risks of catastophic accidents, but many reactors have leaked small amounts of radioactive waste into the gorundwater. "Small" sounds like no big deal but 1 or 2 parts per million can cause cancer, and these particles last thousands or millions of years. The potential for wrecking the planet is worse than global warming.

Sure nuclear is efficient when you don't consider these costs to health. Best alternatives are wind, hydro and solar, maybe we will finally get those developed

@Crazyter - the power supply/demand balance over the next 50 years will be conducive to lots of research and increased efficiencies and manufacturing ability in terms of green energy. However we will need conventional (not even nuclear) energy in increased volumes regardless. As long as Americans want a western life style coal power plants are here to stay. Nuclear power can offset some of the environmental costs, but in terms of economic feasibility you coal and oil are just too dang cheap. I am also not a huge believer in subsidization, you are really paying for it either way. Really what it comes down to is that America just isn't in the fiscal position to be too worried about their power sources (as for oil that is a totally different discussion, but honestly the Iraq war covered a lot of it).

Assuming that it is not plausible to rid ourselves of Coal energy or significantly reduce Oil consumption within the next 50 years your health concerns are useless. Cancer is far more attributable to Coal and Oil than to Nuclear power.

I am American and agree 100% that AMericans are selfish energy hogs, with coal and oil being too damn cheap. But so is nuclear. None include the full environmental costs. Solar/hydro/wind have much fewer envirnomnetal costs but they have not been developed. WHY NOT? because the big pwer companies dont know how to control them on a massive scale and make a big profit.

Levels that you're talking about are no more than a person gets by living at higher altitudes, earning frequent flier miles, or just living in an area with higher than average natural background raditation. Infact you will receave a much higher dose by flying during solar storm.

@Crazyter - solar is decades away from reaching its technological potential, hydro isn't readily available in the quantities that we need it, and as for wind... I am not a huge fan of it.

Crazyter - Hydroelectric has been thoroughly developed, and would probably be more so if not for complaining about the environmental impact. Neither solar nor wind power can provide "base" power (i.e. a constant supply of power no matter what the weather) and as a result, they are really only useful as supplementat power sources, not primary power sources. The power grid depends on power plants being able to provide a steady but also controllable amount of power, and with solar and wind, it is almost impossible to "turn up" or "turn down" the amount of power being produced.

@warsprite, but that amount incurred from flying is a one-time dose. having a power plant in the neighborhood would be a lifetime dose for those exposed. Sure, at any one time, the residents would receive less radiation than those flying, but they are exposed for a much longer duration.

Hydro has been tapped out, infact many smaller dams are being removed because of the envirmental cost to the area, and is ideal for and produced by "big power companies".

As for the record, I think that my amazing pun should be noted:

"as for wind power... I am not a huge fan of it"

@nola2172 or "Quebec" - I totally agree.

You only fly one time in your life? If the danger at that level is so great why are not flight crews droping dead, or the people living in Aspin, and Denver?

Spyman, you commented "....I don't think that the Emission Trading Scheme should be viewed as a leftist program at all....." I do mostly agree. Just wanted to clarify that I described our ALP and Mr Kevin Rudd as Leftist - not the Policy itself. I do think that if we use an ETS to incentivise the market to reduce poulltions, then all alternatives should be on the table for the market to invest in. The private sector can never produce Nuclear though because they wouldn't survive without massive Government insurance assistance as to the risks.

Having been exposed to radiation from a nuclear power plant (and having gone through one of the toughest military training programmes), I can say that the amount of radiation you could potentially get from a plant is far less than you'd get from a single incident of getting sunburned in Bali.

There is no such thing as zero risk, but this hysteria is just that. Hysteria.

It's the typical antitech hystria that started in the 60's. You take the most extreme and unlikely possibility and claim it will happen every day.

@Kaptinkool you should be straped to a wind mill blade for that pun.

@warsprite - a fair PUNishment indeed!

@KaptinKool Very Punny.

@warsprite - lol i've got nothing