6 Responses

1. as many problems as nuclear energy has we have to build more power plants. we must get away from carbon based fossil fuels and our dependence on foreign countries to supply us with oil.
   also, you were asking about cold fusion, not cold fission. that is really just a pipe dream that has very little chance of even being real, not just something we can rely on to solve our energy needs.

2. With our dependence on oil, we had better find an alternative fuel source, and in a hurry.We can’t just go and start wars to get other people’s oil.Nuclear energy is one possibility, I’m sure our scientist are working hard to try and find other sources, they have worked hard on other means to find something else.But we as a nation have become so dependent on oil , it might be hard for us as a people to be able to adapt to something different as a fuel source. We have grown accustom to oil, will we be able to change to something we’re not familiar with?Who knows what the future holds.

3. Pressurized water nuclear reactors are probably the safest, least polluting source of energy available right now. Its biggest problem is the scare tactics of the media. that picture you always see of the big towers with the steam coming out is just that – steam. They are cooling towers and the steam is just a cloud close to the ground.

   Even at Three Mile Island where the operators did about everything wrong the plant protected itself with minimum release of radioactive pollution.

4. I am very much in favor of more nuclear power plants. They can be built and operated safely. Most people don’t realize that most of the electric power used in France is nuclear. France has a very professional, high quality program and it workes quite well.

   I question the idea of cold fusion.

   I’m over 60 years of age.

5. The greatest technological challenge of the 21st century is to meet energy demand in an environmentally sustainable way. Nuclear energy is a carbon free energy; however, current fission technology leaves a deadly legacy – radioactive waste that is toxic for tens of thousands of years. To put the energy demands of humans in perspective with nuclear energy, please see the lecture by Nate Lewis (California Institute of Technology). In 2006, humans are consuming energy at a rate of about 14TW (14 trillion watts). Using current technology, in order to generate 10TW of energy, we would have to build a new reactor every single day for the next 50 years. This would be a monumental effort in stupidity and futility. Furthermore, this would not meet growing energy demand, which is predicted to be ~28TW in the year 2050. The clearest alternatives are wind energy and solar energy. Practically, wind energy used globally can potentially provide ~2TW energy, meaning that solar energy is going to be our primary energy source. The energy that strikes the Earth in 1 hour as sunlight is enough to provide humanity’s energy needs for 1 year (~14TW). However, this energy is diffuse, and we still need to develop low cost, efficient methods to convert solar energy to fuels and electricity. Research is progressing rapidly in this topic. The world needs to committ massive resources to this right now.

   The second part of your question relates to cold fusion. Interestingly, fusion is the source of sunlight, so using solar energy, is in a way, using fusion energy (we don’t have to worry about the problems of containment and generating fusion pressures and temperatures). There are a few research projects around the world that are working on finding useful methods for controlling fusion reactions for energy. Perhaps the most well known involves a giant room with thousands of high energy lasers that are focused at a pelletized source of fusionable material. In this scheme, the energy input from the lasers initiates fusion. This technology is promising, but is far from being economical. Research efforts should continue.

6. Nuclear energy has amazing possibilities if
   – used responsibly and
   – supported sufficiently

   Used responsibly means the design is safe, the facilities are built properly, the system is operated and maintained correctly, and the byproducts are handled and disposed of properly. This is mostly under the control of the energy company.
   Supported sufficiently means there are facilities to handle waste products, there is political support, there are regulations to control all of the above, and there is a proven process to ensure all of the above is done correctly. This is mostly under the control of the government.

   So far, about all that can be said for civilian nuclear power in the US is that there are promising designs.
   A number of countries (France, Japan, US, etc.) have nuclear power reactors with an enviable operating history, even including Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry, etc., but all is forgotten after Chernobyl (a dangerous design complicated with overriding safety features).

   Most folks forget that all US aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear-powered. They are thrilled to tour one and think nothing of the fact that there are 1-2 nuclear reactors belowdecks/aft. This is because the US Navy does all of the above correctly. Should the civilian power industry and government get their acts together, someday everyone may view civilian nuclear plants the same way as they do military warships.

   Most folks also forget that nuclear power produces heat first and electricity second, so anything that requires a lot of heat is a better use of nuclear power (or any other heat-producing technology, like coal, oil, etc.), like, for example, desalination plants and housing heat.

   So don’t just think electricity and US. Nuclear power’s shining moment is to provide electricity *and* drinking water to 1000’s of people in third-world countries. This is not only possible today but desirable.

   As for cold fusion, it is not a proven technology or science, so while it may be shown to have merit at some point, it should be bundled with nuclear fusion as a distant future technology possibility.