News about Fukushima

[longship]

7. That is an entirely different argument.

It is not one I addressed, but is nevertheless important in this context.

I worked at Argonne National Laboratory in my senior year in physics on a national grant. There, nuke power was important and much of the research surrounded that philosophy. But many of my fellow research fellows did not see it that way. We asked questions at seminars which were difficult, to say the least.

My work was concentrated on electron states in certain minerals which gave hope for new solar energy sources. It was way out there and I do not think it went anywhere, especially now that nano tech has taken over solar and battery research.

But nuclear power still has one, and I believe it is the only, hope for nukes. That is modular nukes. They are small; they require zero maintenance; they can run reliably for decades with no pollution and easily managed radioactive footprints. They are well tested -- the Voyager spacecraft are still running after decades of no fail power.

It is not a panacea. Solar, wind, tidal, etc. sources are the best long term solutions. But modular nuke may help, too, since it is proven, safe, and ultra reliable.

Now, what the fuck do we do with the waste? What good is powering a community for decades for pennies a kilowatt-hour if you have no way to recycle the damned thing.

That is where my argument breaks down.