by ScottK
(Merrickville)
There's a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen stating that expanding use of nuclear facilities and energy sources is unlikely to occur over the next two decades, unless the global community adopts major changes to improve safety and security.
It concluded that the economics and regulatory constraints of developing nuclear power plants were among the biggest barriers for the industry.
OK, so is it that nuclear power is unsafe or is the real fact that politicians are 'gun-shy' on the issue, and the process is buried in piles of steamy 'oversight' and bureaucratic horsepoop?
Here's the facts:
Oil and gas - running out, carbon-emitting, and at the mercy of every crackpot state around the globe. Every time some lunatic in Nigeria bangs on an oil pipeline with a stick, the price of oil goes up $5 a barrel.
Coal - habitat-destroying, dirty energy, that is also very finite
Hydro - already at 85% of maximum world-wide capacity; in other words if a hydro dam CAN be built, it most likely HAS been built. Not much upside to support growing energy needs
And while the report cited above said that alternative forms of energy like solar and wind would be better options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they DO NOT YET have the capacity to produce more than a tiny fraction of the needed energy, nor will they for the foreseeable future.
So, what's the answer? It's been said that 'democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
I believe the exact same thing is true of nuclear power; it's a terrible choice, except for all the others!
As regards the regulatory barriers, I suggest the answer is to 'nuke' the bureaucracy, not the industry.
How do I know nuclear power can be made safe? Well, the U.S. and other states have successfully created nuclear-powered submarines, with the capacity to power a small town. There's your model; now just bring it ashore!