Which do people feel are worse for electricity generation? Fossil Fuels or Fission?

[connor]

While many claim that Fission is clean, that is true only until you attempt to dispose of the used fuel. Typically, that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Some options exist to remove the stuff that can't be used anymore, thus making new fuel. But those generally have military implications that make them unlikely to be usable by 3rd world nations—especially those that want to either obtain nuclear weapons or expand an arsenal that might be limited to 1 or 2 weapons.

[connor]

Id have to say fossil is by far the worst.

If the thorium cycle is perfected then you can 'burn' the residue from uranium cycle plants in it, which could result in a reduction in wast mass of 90+ percent. An added plus would be that much of this waste would have a short half life, around 10-20 years vs. thousands of years (the exception being a bit of protactinum 231). Another plus is that there is 3-4 times as much throium around as uranium.

[camo]

Hi Connor

Welcome to WAB, good question.

I don't know enough to add a vote and I suspect my first reaction (no pun intended) would be an emotive answer based on little fact. The generation of electricity by Fission reaction has had a bad press and therefore most peoples opinion are based on what they hear rather than what they know.

Can you tell us a little more about Thorium reactors I guess from your text they are the next generation power generators. How definite are they, what timescales are they estimating. Is Thorium just an alternative fuel to Uranium or does it require new reactors. From the little I know I understand there is a high cost to changing and that is holding back total support.

If I polled a vote now it would it would be in favour of Fission but I will add a vote when I have investigated a little.

Roy

[Lancashire Lad]

Without getting sidelined into the relative merits of wind power, (for which there is a separate thread), and which, along with solar power etc. etc. will play all its part, for me fission is the only way forward as the main player in electricity generation.

In my mind, I am 100% certain - no doubts whatsoever.

Regards
Mike.

[Poirot]

I agree with Lancashire Lad, Fission is a source of power that needs to be implemented in the short term to prevent global warming. When I say fission I mean breeder reactors and fast reactor, these types of reactors are best as the neuclear waste can be broken down and turned into safer isotapes. (if you don't understand these terms have a look on wikipedia).

Fusion is what needs to have more funding, as fusion power is the ultimate power source.

Overall I agree that fossil fuels are the worst by far

[connor]

Yes i agree with you guys aswell
allso I was thinking of a way to get rid of the wast I was saying YES! why haven't they already done this ?!
then my moment went cos i was thinking send it all up in a spaceship into the sun ..prob there considering most of the rockets blows up if you have all that cr.ap in there with it and it dose blow up you have tons and tons of cr.ap in the ocean all over the planet so ye:/

[camo]

I still agree with my first thoughts, fossil fuels worse!

Roy

[KeenTeen17]

I think fossil fuels are worse (everyone knows the effects they have on the planet and how they are all going to run out)

nuclear fission is still at the sci fi stage but it could be possible.

[Mick_S]

Another vote for fission being the best option by far and never mind the various greens and their scaremongering, I could rant about it all evening but I wont.

Mick

[Jez]

Frission great if it works, but I'm not to happy about splitting atoms could have monstrous consequences if it all went pear shaped! So what's worse with frission not active is quite unknown, as it stands it's fossil fuels are ATM. I don't like fossil fuels but saying that I'm dubious about frission also!