In the 60s there was a big debate on which is better, thorium or uranium. Uranium ended up as the winner because the waste could be used to make weapons.
The thorium power plant model solves all the most pressing problems that Uranium power plants have:
1. Safety: Unlike the ones we use today, Thorium power plants don't need high pressure to function. The cooling liquid used has a significantly higher boiling temperature, thereby there isn't nearly as much of a risk of explosions occurring like in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
In fact Thorium power plants would have a fail-proof safety system. The way it works is simply by adding another empty container beneath the main one and sealing it with an ice quark by blowing cold air over it. The moment something goes wrong the air stops blowing, the quark melts, and all the pressured water escapes into the other container.
2: Waste: While there still is nuclear waste, the amount is significantly less than with Uranium. Also the radiation it emits is significantly less compared to Uranium.
3: Power: The amount of power you can get from Thorium is vastly superior than what we get from nuclear power plants today, researchers have estimated that one ton of Thorium would be equivalent to 200 tons of Uranium and 2.5 million tons of coal.
4: Abundance: There is 3 times more thorium in the earths crust than there is Uranium, and better yet, the form it appears in in nature is stable, so there isn't a risk of contamination.
-If there was such a thing as a viable alternative to nuclear energy I'd be the first to advocate it's use, however solar and wind farms can't possibly meet the huge energy demands of the modern world, and fossil fuels will destroy the health of our environment as well as our own health.......The only reasonable option is Thorium.
Many new advances in technology has made nuclear energy both efficient and reliable. Things you don't hear about "clean" or "renewable" energy is the environmental cost to the production of things such as batteries and the materials used to make things such as solar pannels, wind turbines, hydro plants. Nuclear energy has become safe in addition to efficient and reliable. Failure is an opportunity to learn. Safety has increased dramatically sice Chernobyl and Fukushima. Plus the U.S. has many more regulations and restrictions for nuclear power plants than other countries. Nulcear Energy can lead to energy independency. Naval submaries and aircraft carriers have mini nuclear power plants on them and they are energy independant. The only readon they come to port is to change crew and load supplies. Yet another plus to nulear power is it is incredibly cheap compaired to "renewable" energy sources.
Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
In the 2010 book Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power Barry Brook and Ian Lowe discuss and articulate the debate about nuclear power. Brook argues that there are seven reasons why people should say "yes" to nuclear power:
Because renewable energy and energy efficiency won’t solve the energy and climate crises
Because nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and packs a huge energy punch
Because new technology solves the "nuclear waste" problem
Because nuclear power is the safest energy option
Because advanced nuclear power will strengthen global security
Because nuclear power's true costs are lower than either fossil fuels or renewables
Because nuclear power can lead the "clean energy" revolution.
With the most advanced plants entering their 4th generation phase, nuclear power is becoming an increasingly attractive means of power. The Gen 3 reactors already extended the average life of a plant from 80+ years for the Gen 2 to 120+ years and reduced the risk of failure from 60 events per 100 million reactor years to 3 events per 100 million reactor years. Gen 3 also increased efficiency for Uranium, so each plant could use about 17% less fuel. The benefits of Gen 4 are far greater. Gen 4 reactors will decrease the time time it takes for nuclear waste to become stable to a few centuries, not a few millennia like the previous Gens. They will also increase energy yield by 100-300 times per amount of fuel and further broaden the range of possible fuel types. Several Gen 4 reactors will also create byproducts which can be used as fuel for older or different reactors, making the argument for nuclear power being a form of renewable energy possible. Add all that onto the laundry list of additional safety features and you have a safe, environmentally friendly (relatively speaking), and economically cheap power source.
First lets take a look at the japan plant that exploded a few years back the radiation is still lingering around. There are way more less dangerous ways to harness energy. Examples are solar panels. Electricity wires and many more. Having a few plants that r watched constantley is good but there r 2 many already
Instead of focusing on things such as nuclear plants that may cause damage to the environment, we should be focusing our time and energy into researching sustainable sources of energy, we have polluted the earth enough, instead of making more nuclear plants, we need to make the existing ones safer.
Nuclear plants are efficient but extremely expensive to build. Many of the plants that were built during the 70’s and 80’s were touted to save money on the consumer end. But in fact, increased electric rates due to construction cost overruns. Many plants did not receive enough federal funding, nor sell enough bonds to offset overages which were sometimes 2 and 3 fold over estimates. These costs were passed onto the consumer. Furthering the debacle were issues of patented building techniques leading to expensive court fees, increased safety regulations and deregulation of energy suppliers. Now these aging plants require extensive and costly refitting, and most often it’s found not fiscally sound to undertake. Which leaves us with what to do with the radioactive waste products of these now defunct plants? There has never been an assured safe nor satisfactory resolution to this issue while plants are running or after closure.