And that's where our stances differ. I do not separate the politics and the question of "who profits" from the discussion because the two are inseparably linked to this matter.

I respect your stand on this. But I had assumed that this section of the forum is reserved for more... shall we say... academical discussions. More towards the science of the issue rather than the politics, which I assume would be in the Real-Life Issues sub-forum.

Not wanting to get drifted, what other alternatives we have? Solar, hidro, wind and all this ala green peace power generators still havent come close to the energy that nuclear can produce. not yet anyway. and not without sacrificing tons of land and forest.

The problem with academic discussion is that it is not just divorced from the realities of life, it is also because academia is funded and encouraged by real life political-economic power bases and factions.

One alternative we have is to shift our economy into one that is less consumption based, to one that is more sustainable.

One problem that people will always face is the Malthusian dilemma of not just the scarcity of food but also of raw materials and energy.

The minerals we can extract from Earth are FINITE. This includes anything we will use as nuclear fuel. This finiteness of resources, and the eventual outcome that we WILL use them up, is a shadow of an Easter Island type of extinction that hangs over the entire human species.

You have me at a disadvantage when it comes in politics. so I'll try to stick to what I know.

Finite as it is, it will not deplete for a very long time. with advances in reactor technology such as breeder reactors, the deadline can be extended quite significantly.

Unfortunately, it is still finite. Hopefully, by the time we actually deplete sources, fusion technology would become reality. Either that or hope that man has made significant leaps in technology of renewable sources.

contrary to your belief, nuke fuel is not just uranium + plutonium
thorium

i wunder how many nuke powerplants r there in this world . . . .


duno malaysia got o not
but we seems like never have problem with electrical shortage wan . . . .

as of 2006, there are 441 nuclear powerplants with US(103), France(59), and Japan (55) the top 3 followed by Korea, Russia, India, other European countries, etc..

Malaysia does have a nulear reactor but for research purposes only.

And true, we do not have power shortages right now. But the whole reason why they were considering Nuclear is because our nations oil supply is running low.

Trivia: We nearly had a Nuclear powerplant built in the 70s. The site and every other logistics were pretty much settled (planning wise). Then we struck oil

what happen with this topic? dead?

haha maybe ppl are not interested anymore.

anywaysss, last week Lim Guan Eng dropped the bomb on our Green Tech Minister in Parliament. He said that "If stadium roof can collapse (refering the one in Terengganu), how can we assume that the same thing would not happen to a nuclear power station?"

What do you guys think on this?

Cesc
B Eng (Chemical)
Monash University