acetophenol
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 7,006
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Yeah I know by 2050 we'll get 30% of electricity from thoriumPPs but hey the year will be 2050
Well to the NPP supporters here...I have maintained that I am not against thorium reactors.Afterall they are relatively "clean".
Thorium reactors do create waste....but they use stockpiled waste as a starter, their waste is “tenths of a percent of the comparable volume from a conventional reactor,” and its half-life is “a few hundred years { ONLY }as opposed to tens of thousands of years.
But heres the best news about it.. deriving U-233 is “virtually impossible, even for a sophisticated nuclear power lab, much less for a rogue nation, or terrorist group.”Now thats good news.
But let me tell you what Dr. Alvin Weinberg the “guru” of thorium nuclear technology called it ....he said this is a “Faustian bargain” and said it is "a great energy source, but you gotta worry about proliferation and waste".
And lets not forget thorium based nuclear power is still a HYPOTHESIS.
Renewable resources are the way forward.Just that our species doesnt know how to utilize it.
Renewable resources are indeed the way forward,but as you said our species doesn't know how to utilize it.We are yet to effectlively tap solar power effectively that majority of the energy in solar radiation is left untouched,So what shall we do?Can we just sit idle,till some one comes up with awesome plan that will guarantee unhindered power supply round the clock,round the year utilizing minimum space?Had we had effective way of utilizing renewable sources to satisfy our needs,then I would've happily stood with you against nuclear or any other sources of energy,but unfortunately we don't.
Right now,we have a set of renewable sources (solar,wind,geothermal etc),which has severe limitations interms of availability and technology.And we have non-renewable sources (fossil fuels),about which I'd rather not talk about.Nuclear energy is therefore the best option that we have.
About the nuclear waste,the waste produced by urnaium in an nuclear powerplant is negligibly small when compared to that produced by a coal powered powerplant of the same capacity.And the good part is that,the nuclear waste is very small enough to be easily contained.Even if the all the electricity use of the USA was distributed evenly among its population, and all of it came from nuclear power, then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams.
And about thorium based reactors,inshallah we are moving miles ahead in that area,PFBR being a great step forward,we'll achieve it hopefully.
You can cheer for non-renewable sources,I'll cheer with you,but don't blame nuclear energy,especially when its the best option available.
i think here is some technical terminology issue, bcoz we r already building 4,000MW Solar Plant in Rajasthan n many more of similar capacity r proposed.
BHEL, 5 PSUs to set up 4,000 MW solar plant in Rajasthan - The Hindu
i think its like single unit of 125 MW or something which makes it, the largest single unit project or something.
Bro,I think there's a difference b/w "Solar Powerplant" and "Solar-Thermal powerplant" .
Solar powerplants directly convert solar radiation into electricity using photovoltaic cells,whereas solar thermal power plants uses concentrated solar power,which powers a heat engine,that runs a generator.
Please tell if I am wrong!
Last edited: