Probably the best answer (at the moment) would be thorium-based reactors - very
little waste materials plus they can burn up waste from previous uranium
reactors. However, the coal and uranium mining interests here and abroad don't
like it as thorium is far more abundant than uranium and for the energy gained,
it works out cheaper than coal. Not only that, they greatly reduce the chances
of nuclear proliferation as you have to put a lot more work into one of those
to get anything fissile enough to make weapons.I'm always amused by Australia's
horror of nuclear reactors, especially given the amount of uranium exported
from here...
Anyway (pet subject aside), I'd be right behind wind farms if they weren't so
good at killing off wildlife, same with tidal power - the previous UK
government was going to press ahead with a scheme that could well have
destroyed important marine areas in the Severn Estuary, just so they could
provide heavily subsidised power to a small area through a tidal boom.
Hopefully that plan has carked it and they might even replace it with
underwater turbines in tidal channels, which are much less disruptive.
Regarding the aesthetic value of wind farms, they do have a certain charm along
the coast of southern Spain - they just a lack a moden-day Don Quixote to tilt
at them...
Cheers,
Tony
|
