Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts wrote:Great Pacific Switzerland wrote:If ya have a brain and are willin to do research. It shouldn't
I'm still very much worried about the prospects of Nuclear.
Extracting uranium to power nuclear generators is a very toxic process - as seen with the mess Rio Tinto was left in over their uranium mine in the Top End - and there are certain safeguards that have to be followed. Uranium-238 has a half-lifeof 4.48 billion years and uranium-235 has a half-life of 703 million. Goodness knows what would happen if uranium or the by-products of the extraction process leached into a water table on the scale of Kakadu. I don't know much but I do know that the result would be very, very ugly.
Shouldn't be a problem. Mining process isn't too bad
And even in our modern day, with all the technology in the world to prevent another Chernobyl or Fukushima,
even the best plans can fail. It isn't possible to eliminate every vulnerability. Things can go wrong. Nuclear power may be cleaner than using coal or liquid-natural, shale, coal seam or tight gas, and I would actually prefer it if renewables didn't exist.
Chernobyl was because of RBMK design flaws, gross safety disgrace and political publicity. Fukushima was an anomaly due to natural disasters, it could have been avoided if they placed it in an area thats NOT known well for tsunamis. Cananda hasn't had a problem with nuclear power and they produce about 10GW. Same with France and they produce 40GW