From the round table discussion held in October, 2009 by our classmates, it was the consensus that the nuclear power will be the sole solution to meet the increasing demand for energy. In addition, the Generation IV Nuclear Energy System is believed to be safer and more efficient. However, the approach to the problem is mainly from a technical point of view. Which I strongly feel is deviating from the real life situation.
Discarding the engineering approach, or rather looking into the problem from a broader base, does a single solution solve the problem of population increase, environmental pollution and providing safe and abundant energy? If it does, it will be more dangerous. The demand of Man is never satisfied. One propulsion which makes us ‘engineer’ the world at our convenience.
Nuclear power fanatic claim that the Gen IV system is the best in many aspects. It seems true because right now our scientific knowledge can only enable us to implement in such way. However, decades later there will be Gen V, Gen VI and so on to replace the current one, with knowledge gained probably from the failure of Gen V reactors. Previous nuclear power systems were also thought to be the ‘best’ at that point of time. Therefore the current claim is invalid.
Professionals tend to present the advantages with jargon, to shy the general public away from discussing with them in technical aspects. Though it is ‘safe’, in real life the risk is never 0. Theoretically risk can be minimized (from research), assumed (by the public), transferred (to other institutions such as an insurance company) or avoided. For the public, avoiding a tame monster is still better than living next to it, no matter how tame it is. However, technocracy has determined that with/without our consent, the program will still carry on. (And we have to support one of the reactors in order to complete EG1471)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment