Frank, the time is approaching when use of nuclear power with both its positives and negatives will be balanced against the insufficiency of alternatives, with their positives and negatives.
It would be wrong to view my posts as advocating atomic energy; what I'm really trying to say is that it's a pragmatic interim solution.
The next decade should reveal whether fusion can be made to work, and that would be far preferable.
"But, what new improvements in waste management techniques has the industry concocted in order to deal with the eternal-like problems associated with the disposal of spent fuels?"
None. But the next decade will also reveal whether global warming is directly related to burning fossil fuels. If (as many suspect) that is found to be true, then we'll be faced with continuing practices that have an immediate, predictable and devastating global downside, as compared to an alternative where the consequence have to be safely hidden away for 65,000 years, or so.
Which choice will we make? I don't know, but many are deluding themselvs when they say that we can continue our existing lifestyle by practicing energy conservation, and generation by alternative means.
There will be a large shortfall. If we don't make up that shortfall, then something's gotta give.
When that "something" is the lifestyle to which we've become accustomed, you will find nuclear power regains grudging acceptance. Especially as, and if, the consequences of global warming ravage our planet.
But at that point, we'll be well behind the curve.
Jim |
