Not in 2022.
You can have a debate on how dangerous fission is. Its not really that it can become a potentional nuclear bomb. Its that you can have radioactivity leaking. In theory something really bad can still happen. There can be an explosion that will spread radioactive material or leak radioactivity but this is fundamentally very different from a bomb.
The big problem is the waste, imo. If we build the best storage facility now the waste will problably be in the open a few thousand years later. Well, the point is that we don't know. If something must be stored for 10,000 years you can never say that the problem is fixed because we have absolute no control over what happens in a thousand years or more.
Our civilization could be whiped out by an influenza virus. Actually a few of them could be whiped out. The knowledge about what radioactivity is may be lost. One could say that these are doomsday scenarios. But it is realisitic. Civilizations don't last that long. Our culture, knowledge, language, everything, may be gone someday. And then an earthquake may break up the waste facility located in a cavern underground. Personally I don't really understand how people can say the waste problem is solved. Or that is it only an issue of money. If you back nuclear power you must admit there is a risk that the waste may cause huge damage long after we are gone. If you ask me if that is justified, that our energy needs to live the way we do is an ample reason to take this risk then the answer is obviously: no.
But I guess it will happen.
Fusion is theoretically an excellent way to generate energy. It has several major advantages over fission. First off, while fission is a chain reaction, the fusion reaction requires very special conditions t happen. If something goes wrong it will stop by itself. The moment the reactor breaks down the conditions will be comprimised and the reaction will cease. Fission can turn out very ugly.
And yes, the reaction itself does not create waste. There is radioactivity invlolved, though. In theory the reactor could still leak radioactivity. But compared to fission this is quite minor. The inside of the reactor becomes radioactive. It also errodes. I think it has to be replaced once every few years, depending on the nature of the reaction and remains radioactive for only 50 years. Its much easier to make sure we can store something for 50 years than for 10,000 years, of course. I am not sure but I think the mass of the waste will be much much smaller with fusion also.
Fusion isn't efficient. Well, I am not sure what you mean. The theoretical reaction is more efficient and much much more elegant. But before the reaction starts off we have to simulate the conditions in a sun. The H-atoms have to be in plasma state so they lose their electron shells, which don't take part in the reaction and would shield the nucleus, preventing the fusion reaction, if they remained in orbit. So this means it has to be very very hot. Then we need very strong magnetic fields to direct the plasma flow. The plasma has to be contained. It is not supposed to hit the outside. Then the particles need momentum, they need to move fast. Then they need to bump in each other, collide and fuse.
To get all this to work requires a lot of energy already. This is not the case with fission, which happens automatically the moment you have enough enriched critical mass. To make the net output of the process positive we need to build a larger reactor. Several small prototype ones already exist. Finally, the countries involved in the research stopped fighting and agreed on a spot to build the new reactor. I think it starts in 2008 or so. So its not really a short term solution. Actually, there are still particle phycisicts that doubt it will ever be efficient.
One could make a case arguing that if all the money spend on nuclear power would have been spend otherwise the energy problem may already be fixed. The money spend on nuclear research is much much more than the money spend to make our machines more economic. Still, most computer and tv could be using about 10% less energy if we spend a few more dollars on some systems that we can already input today. So saving energy this way is a lot cheaper than nuclear research.
Solar energy, bio-mass energy, wind energy, etc all cannot replace oil. We just use way too much. We would need to use about 2/3rd of all the farm ground in the world to grow plants for our artificial bio-mass oil to get all the oil we need. That wouldn't leave much space left for food. Same with solar energy. First off, solar cells already require a lot of energy before they are even produced. They only generate a little bit more than use up in production. So we need a lot of them. There's too little space. I do like building huge solar collectors in space. Sounds like a nice idea to me. But it will be very very costly and still not generate that much energy.
The 5th age of the sun on the Mayan calendar ends on the 30th August 2012, when the world will end.
Why would the world end when a calander ends? My 2005 calander has also ended. The world is still here. If the mayan's thought the world would end in 2012 why don't we find those accounts?
The mayan calender had to end somewhere. Or they would have to write one for another 4 billion years, so their calender ends when earth is burned.
Topic: What are your expectations for 2022?