From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: A Reply to Richard Stead Nuclear and Solar Energy
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:20:26 GMT


Okay, I've had the weekend to think about this one. And I probably got a
little over excited, in my last posting. So anyway, here are my thoughts
on the matter.

While it is an interesting point that more attention is focused on
Nuclear Waste than other forms of toxic waste, IMHO it is not relevent
to the point I was trying to make. And without getting in to more gun
type metaphors, just because we've already dumped large amounts of toxic
waste, does not mean we should necessarily accept the creation of more
by expanding the nuclear industry (the same goes for any other
industrial process). Rather than have to pour money and effort into how
to deal with a toxic substance, we should as far as possible try to
develop processes that produce little or no waste. How far that is
possible is obviously up for debate.

Now currently the amount of highly radioactive waste, is to quote Gary
Coleman, enough to cover a football pitch one metre deep. No arguement,
what I was trying to say was that, one of the advantges that solar enjoys
over Nuclear fission (I don't know enough about fusion to comment), is
that it does not produce any wastes, and that as a fuel source for the
future, it should deserve more, a greater slice of the R&D pie.

Moreover, while the current amount of nuclear waste is small, an
expansion of the nuclear industry to meet a growing demand on the
developing third world, will increase this amount significantly.  This
expansion also has security implications ( I won't stick my neck out and
say that you can't make a bomb using solar technology because somebody
will prove me wrong :-) ). Which means much time and effort, to meet
these implications, something that is not necessary for solar
technology.

One problem about nuclear energy, is what to do with the power stations
once they ahve been decommisioned. I don't know what they are planning
in the US, but over here, it involves entombing the core reactors in
concrete, like some giant Stonehenge (now there's a thought Stonehenge
as the remains of a stoneage  nuclear reactor! :-) ). These will be
exposed to the elements in a way that an underground storage facility,
won't be. Already the reactor at Chernobyl is beginning to crumble.(Okay
it had caught fire, was a poor design and badly sited). Again much time
and effort will be involved.

Having said all that, there is no need to throw the baby out with the
bath water, nuclear energy will probably still be needed inb the future,
I just think that we should take steps to minimise the necessity for it.
Obviously there will be a trade off between how much we want to reduce
our energy demands and how much nulcear power we  or our descendents
will be willing to accept.

I've no arguement with those pointing out the pollution issues of
conventional fossil fuels (coal and oil). We must move away from these
systems, although again there maybe a role for these in the future.
Or it may well be that the debate should be between solar technology and
conventional fossil fuel technologies.

Chris

As a postscript.
I read an article in State of the World recently, an arguement for using
gas as a transition to a solar energy society, with hydrogen as a energy
carrier.