@Jim1348: I agree that nuclear is probably the best near-term option for baseline power (least bad might be a better way of putting it). Fukushima was a disaster in more ways than one as the public perception of dangers from radiation caused the cancellation of many planned nuclear fission plants worldwide.

But I think concerns about toxicity are perfectly legitimate: one intended application niche for organic photovoltaics is as a cheap thin film that can be applied almost everywhere to such things as roofs, curtains, laptop screens, windows, etc. even clothes. If this material is going to be ubiquitous, and especially if people are wearing it, it's preferable that it be non-toxic.

@KLIK: your concerns about bromine are exaggerated. Bromides used to be used as sedatives and more recently bromine has been found to be essential for animal life (as a cofactor for an enzyme that cross-links collagen). No doubt it's possible to create a toxic chemical that contains bromine but the same could be said for any element. Think cyanide (carbon + nitrogen).

It is the life cycle of the planet (or the human habitable portion) that is at stake. The definition of "clean & green" by some advocacy group is not. Year 2050 may be enough for other forms of nuclear and non-nuclear energy to be developed, but if not, breeder reactors can extend that for quite a bit more time. And they usually base their estimates on the amount of uranium that is a known reserve, but since the price has been reduced because of low demand due to the slow pace of building reactors, they don't search for it as much. It is the same thing with oil or any other resource.

Certainly not; at least by any species wishing to stay on this planet.
http://news.yahoo.com/earth-saw-explosive-annual-growth-164330040.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how...al-uranium-deposits-last/

But of course if you really believed your estimates, you wouldn't need to argue against nuclear at all; it would just run out.

1st of all, I'm not against nuclear at all...just that it needs to be more closely regulated, 'cause only after Chernobyl & Fukushima did we act upon raising our security measures!
also, your article (although it's correct), doesn't account that we'll have a raise of 20% needed energy in between 2010-2030:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-libr...y-and-climate-change.aspx
What will happen after than, we just can't know for sure...but those are the prognosis, base upon a 2% increase every year in demand of electric power - which is a measurable dimension, so it's a FACT...so those 230y is less, 'cause it's based on "current demand"!
2nd, it also assumes that we'll find another 10,5 trillion ton of Un - which is "ridiculous"...we were talking about "what we currently have, as a human kind"...not that we might import it from Uranus moon!
3rd, it also assumes that we'll get technology to get Un from seawater, "without any cost analysis" - which is totally absurd...nobody's not going to think of that machine, until it's financially viable to be profitable!
4th, nuclear power is raising temp. of our planet...in my case, a river Sava is raised by 0,5-1°C then before NP Krško was put...on those figures also come a higher temp. from a heat during the longer summer-times & raised temp....so saying that nuclear is going to save us - is totally absurd!
yes, it does have more energy in a bar than in a whole truck load of coal...
yes, it doesn't pollute a planet in a visible particles...
but it also carries some other things we need to think of!

temp. of planet is raising, so anyone advocating about "stop raise by building more nuclear plants" it totally ignorant to the question, instrument of someone (or some company) or a nuclear company spokesman itself!

btw, we're her to talk about "heavy metals in solar cells"...so stop kidnapping topic & star talking about solar cells...'cause if you do continue to talk about nuclear again, then I must conclude that you're one of those who pushes nuclear power instead of dirty coal/oil/gas power plants & want to undermine solar cells!


Arthur, I was thinking about a "closed loop system".

some of us know about Thorium & it's implications...some say it will power first spacecrafts/spaceprobes...some even say it will power cars of the future?! nuclear cars - back to the '60...

but, this topic is about solar cells...a green energy, bio-degradable, non-toxic solar cells...& still no scientist have come here to say "anything" about why they test "normal heavy metals" for use in solar cells?!