|
Post by carnyx on Mar 23, 2011 15:56:44 GMT 1
Orignally, siting them on the coast was precautionary. Now they are developed, there seems no reason to plonk them anywhere that will have them .. but they are Big Things.
And the point about Tidal or Wave devices is well made that even their prototypes have to be on a big scale, so they are going to take more time ( and hence money than we've got). They have had their chance, so best keep them alive with a trickle of funding but not to overdo it and create a bubble, like has happpened to Wind and now Solar
Personally, I reckon that small-scale passive reactors that could be used to generate local village-scale power and hot water for local heating systems, is the way to go. So whike we await Thorium, Fusion, wave, tidal, rubbish/biogas burning etc.... such an infrastructure could be put in today, using gas turbogenerators. Shale gas is predicated to reduce the cost of gas anyway, so we could construct the winning arrangement of an 'intelligent' grid infrastructure that could take any old input from anywhere and make it economically useful.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Mar 25, 2011 16:53:09 GMT 1
Another possible lesson from Fukushima, don't put 6 reactors on the same site. Danger from one reactor can make it impossible to work on the others.
I am not against nuclear power but let's not be complacent. The Japanese are at least as good at technology as we are and they are having terrible trouble with this power station.
|
|