engineering fundamentals Discussion Forum
Directory | Career | News | Standards | Industrial | SpecSearch®
Home Membership Magazines Forum Search Member Calculators






List Recent Topics | Start a New Topic

<< Previous Message No. 13033 Next >>
Author: b1ueshift
Time: 01/18/04 23:08 PST
This is a reply to message no. 13032 by gerdb
Reply | Original Message | New Topic | List Topics | List Messages on This Topic
Current Topic:
only bad attitude causes economic loss in peaceful use of atomic power plants
This is going to be controversial.  I think most people have an opinion, but few people have an understanding of the technology.

I would say that the environmental impact of nuclear power is lower than power generated from fossile fuels.  I had always thought that nuclear weapons program, or just the potential to create nuclear weapons in the future, was a major motivator for countries to build nuclear power stations.

I had a look at Uranium Information Centre of Australia ( which is funded by uranium mining companies and is quite pro nuclear energy.  They maintain that nuclear power is about the same cost as fossil fuel (although the 5% per annum finance cost of the reator is a bit low and makes their calculated cost appear low).

There doesn't seem to be much interest in hydrogen fusion research - perhaps because there aren't weapons technology spin-offs.

This isn't to say that nuclear power of some kind won't become cost effective at some time in the future.
[ List Replies to This Message Only ]

Home  Membership  About Us  Privacy  Disclaimer  Contact  Advertise

Copyright © 2018 eFunda, Inc.