Nuclear Power Companies Booming Worldwide
British Energy pulled off an incredible feat last week of announcing a barnstorming 145% rise in profits. BE, which generates one-fifth of the UK’s electricity, is also expected to have a major role to play in the process of building the next generation of nuclear stations – assuming management can demonstrate that they are up to the task.
Nuclear energy companies are thriving, due to the clean, cheap and efficent manner in which Nuclear power can be generated. In other recent news, an upstart Alberta company, which includes oil patch heavy hitter Hank Swartout as an invester, has a deal with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to market the Candu nuclear reactor to firms in Calgary looking to operate oil sands projects.
The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use in some countries could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents aver that these risks are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups believe nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. There is concern in some countries over North Korea and Iran operating research reactors and fuel enrichment plants, since those countries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be trying to develop nuclear weapons.
8 Responses
Only problems are with waste management, accumulation of highly enriched nuclear materials that may be subject to theft or weapons production. It’s really difficult(if not impossible) to prevent covert weapons program. Countries will find ways to do it. IAEA inspectors have said several times its almost impossible to have surprise inspection in countries. Even with that countries will find ways to hide it. It’s like looking at someone with a gun and saying ‘don’t shoot anybody.’
And politics of who gets to have it and who shouldn’t have nuclear technology is freakin major headache right now because of all that.
Other than that its excellent way to make energy.
Nuclear energy is potentially a very good source of energy. Because of the danger of nuclear proliferation and terrorism, the world community should not tolerate anybody not adhering to adequate IAEA oversight. Some of the technology, like that used in Chernobyl has been demonstrated to be entirely inadequate in that it has the potential to have devastating consequences. Only technology that is not susceptible to such catastrophic accidents should be considered in future construction. If it cannot be demonstrated by careful studies it shouldn’t be widely deployed.
there was an article in scientific american, or new scientist a few months ago, explaining how basicly Nuclear power can be made without making waste, by recycling the fuel.
You have to make the right kind of new reactors though.
Also they can be made virtually fool proof for accidents, unlike some of the old reactor designs.
One main worry is sabotage.
The other is that people are scared of the word ‘nuclear’ and don’t want reactors anywhere near their city.
In safe…non aggressive or targetted countries
I would approve of Nuclear use over fossil fuels… especially coal being the absolute worst fuel to avoid using.
But sustainable, natural power sources would be preferable of course.
However the oil industry doesnt really like this idea ; )
It also depends on the country you live in wether you have the resources for other natural forms of power. Some countries have options, others don’t.
In most of these countries, nuclear is the best option.
There is also technology available now, to use coal and oil in a clean manner. But no one is interested in paying to outfit the power stations to make them clean. …and eventually coal and oil will run out.
fossil fuels seem good for the short and medium term …. if they are cleaned up
Nuclear seems good for mid-length plan
Sustainable seems like it will become slowly more popular and cheaper for a long term plan
I find it very difficult to disapprove of the interest or development of nuclear energy. New GEN IV reactors will utilize the laws of gravity in the event of an accident. In essence, it will be best for the operator to step away from the console.
Waste is not a technology problem, but rather a political one. France has shown us that the best way to deal with waste is to reprocess and reuse it. The small portion that can’t be used can be converted into non-radioactive elements by transmutation (look it up).
Proliferation of nuclear weapons will happen regardless of worldwide interest in nuclear energy.
It seems that no one these days understands the concept of power density, or power generated per given area. Renewable energy sources do not have the necessary power density to become our sole energy sources.
However, they should be implemented on a smaller scale (e.g. everyone having a solar panel roof).
On the other hand, for those truly interested in having renewable energy:
1) Solar, the chemicals used to produce this solar cells are quite damaging to the environment
2) Wind, the mileage of dirt roads needed to access each of turbines in a wind farm are astounding. Can have a terrible effect on the environment.
3) Geothermal, more than half of it is already nuclear-based :). Radioactive decay in the earth is nuclear.
4)Hydro, pretty much used up.
Nuclear power isn’t going away. There simply is no alternative to it when comparing power density, efficiency, etc.
What was it that the scientists said after the first atomic blast test? What have we created?
man you really are working your mind to hard..I know this from the last question you asked.
I feel it is the best way to go with the choices that we currently have. It has a very good track record, is clean and cheap. If I’m correct, France uses 100% nuclear energy. It really is the way to go when used responsibly.
Well, France has conveniently placed their nuclear power plants downwind of their country but upwind from Germany.
If you are worried about pollution, you should really worry about nuclear waste. The last I heard nuclear waste takes 20,000 years to lose 1/2 its activity.
Hydro is not used up. Every river and the ocean currents and waves could be harnessed with paddle wheel type energy converting capability. Unlimited. Wind is unreliable, solar is only ~6 hours/day. Less with the seasons and clouds.
We can now make diamonds. Maybe someone will figure a way to make oil. Nature figured it out.