Small Modular Reactors:
No Solution for the Cost, Safety, and Waste Problems of Nuclear Power
(this be a PDF)
But they aren't enough. The population is still growing, U.S. and worldwide, and the growing, industrializing, standard-of-living-improving population is going to need more energy. All kinds. Until the renewable champions show me a superb battery (there are some) that can store enough power to run a household or a factory when a) the wind isn't blowing and b) the sun isn't shining, I tend to think we need to have all energy alternatives to the damn fossil fuels on the table and under R&D. [And to provide power for all the plug-in hybrids that won't be getting their energy from the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.] And there are more ideas, that might be better and more feasible, than what they discuss in the report. Looking back and saying "it won't work because it didn't work" is quaint, but it's also unrealistic.
PSR is primarily a group opposed to nuclear war and nuclear weapons; always has been. It would be way outside their charter to advocate any form of peaceful nuclear energy. So it isn't surprising that their report finds fault with SMRs. But in spite of the fact that I think PSR has its heart and effort in the right places, addressing global warming and going after environmental dangers like mercury, and coal plant emissions -- dismissing nuclear energy is not going to help the world address the problems of a growing, more affluent population and the ominous approach of peak oil. So I'm going to advocate ignoring this bit of advice from PSR while telling them to keep up the good work -- in other areas.
Leave the development of fossil fuel-energy alternatives to the experts, not the doctors.
No comments:
Post a Comment