Quote:
Originally Posted by gagners
As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... The amount of waste produced will increase on an exponential level (as oil usage did when OPEC cut costs three decades ago). If it's cheap, we'll just use more. Secure storage is great, yet finite. eventually, we will outgrow our storage capacity. Space to store it, therefore, will be what is at a premium.
|
Probably true. In essence, what you're saying is that nuclear plants support continued exponential growth.
However, our global economy is based on precisely that. Organizations - whether oil companies or charities - depend on it. One need look no further than a price-earnings ratio to see investor expectations of future earnings growth. Likewise, we see the same pattern in China; a large population with many still quite poor looks at the relative affluence of a few, and has aspirations.
This is where the issue of oil, whether foreign or domestic, becomes problematic. Consumption tends to keep going up, tracking exponential growth in the greater economy. In fact, one researcher perceives a strong correlation between GDP and oil (
Link - See page 9) The economic cost of independence may be greater than we are willing to pay. A transition to nuclear faces similar demands from exponential growth, and hence the challenges you mention.
Reducing energy demands is likely to have an adverse effect on the greater economy. One person's conservation may represent another person's job. Certain geologic realities may force us in the direction of reduced oil consumption - in which case, nuclear plants would be really nice to have. As for addressing the underlying issue of exponential growth...well, that seems to me like a grand challenge.
