Nuclear power is not the answer, I agree. But the politics about it took me to "rant village"
. There you have:
Some people has started to think that the only clean option is atomic energy, even GreenPeace! As engineer, I do not like it. My optimal design is a paper clip: no instructions needed, no critical failure modes, self evident, necessary shapes. Nuclear plants are incredibly primitive: basically dangerous tea kettles. But I think that if somehow they could be used in a "normal" way and developed, they could be part of the answer. Complicated questions normally require a complicated answer, composed of many parts.
Anyway, nuclear power is one of the few options left (right now) when oil and gas are exhausted. That is the reasoning (on the iranian side) behind the current standoff with USA. They probably don't want to be dependent on developed countries for their future fuel (nor any poor country with uranium, like mine... ehem).
The moral issue here is a thorny one: the major contaminators of nuclear material in the world are France, Russia, China and USA that have been for ages happily exploding nuclear bombs many times the size of Chernobyl in such ecologically delicate places as the western american desert and Polinesia. Except for Godzilla movies
, I haven't heard complaints of the citizens of these countries about the "ecological disaster". Probably is not close enough to them. But my blood boils when I heard people talking about the "horrors" of a chance of explossion, while their government explodes bombs in midair at a Pacific, pristine island.
The american position is specially hard to understand: they have on their history the infamy of having exploded atomic bombs on people ("My God, what have we done?" Robert Lewis, copilot of Enola Gay) and they bragg about
conventional bombs of extraordinary power. Why would
you want a 10 ton conventional bomb to fight terrorism, escapes my understanding, specially when you declare: "...if they didn't give up, they'd be so frightened, they'd dig themselves in to the point where they'd no longer be effective combatants." Who is the terrorist there?
MOAB 10.000 kilos bomb (compare size with the truck in the background):
The Balkans are contaminated with the shield-piercing uranium bullets NATO used there without any problem and the IDF disperse them happily in their neighborhood. Atomic bombs are evidently part of their world power and the reason why these countries keep their chairs at the United Nations Security Council, with vetos that have stalled any progress towards a real agreement of nations, basically dividing the world in "their backyards".
It is hard to understand also why would you be so offended about the possibility of producing non-weapon-graded uranium when you have over 6.000 nuclear missiles cocked and ready. The nuclear powers have not even condescended to say
when they are going to get rid of nuclear weapons (they are obliged to that by the same treaty that
clearly allows any country to do what Iran is trying to do: enrich uranium to produce energy).
When you think about the dangers of conventional chemical plants, the argument about nuclear plants being dangerous is hypocritical or naive. Remember
the Indian tragedy at Bhopal? They "only" had 20.000 people dead: you are the ones talking about a billion to one chances... These plants explode for simple lack of maintenance: remember the recent explosion and fire at a BP plant in Texas? What about the corroded pipes in Alaska, the same year oil companies have record profits? Specially when the alternative we are talking about (global warming) is a possible tragedy of global proportions and an historic shame much worse than Hiroshima.
Finally, most people don't focus on the ball. Do not move your eyes from it: the problem is NOT global warming, nor nuclear energy:
is CO2 contamination, which is a proved thing. It is happening right now. We are not sure about its consequences, that's all, global warming could be one of them, or they could be worse. We will find out, rest assured. Anyway, there is little the developed countries (except USA) can do about it: the rest of the world wants to follow their industrial growing leadership: look at the figures for new CO2 pollution in the world in the next years:
I quote for your entertaining: "Coal was again the world's fastest growing fuel and global consumption growth was twice the 10-year average. Growth was concentrated in China, the largest coal consumer,
which accounts for 80% of global growth. Growth in USA was also relatively strong."
Now, what?
(that's just a lame joke, pleeze). 
