Per unit of energy generated fossil fuels kill and cause more disease than nuclear. I’m pretty sure coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear too but that may be more controversial. Theoretically if you see global warming as a threat nuclear is much better than fossil fuels.
The Soviet Union. 
See, unions are destroying countries!
Damn libs!!!111one
Well, since you haven’t bothered to provide any cites for any of your OP I’m not going to bother either. I’ll just say that the deaths in the US due to respiratory disease caused by the use of coal fired power plants exceeds this EVERY YEAR. And that’s just in the US. If we take the deaths due to coal fired plants (not even to mention the deaths due to mining and processing coal) world wide, it dwarfs anything that happens due to nuclear power.
Of course, if we use magical hemp to provide all our energy needs then, well, we’ll all be happier if nothing else. And it will certainly be a spur to the snack foods industries around the world too, so a double bonus there.
The truth is, you are wrong. Not a big surprise, but there you go. Basically, we could do without nuclear energy…but then we’d need to rely even more on coal and other fossil fuels, which would mean we’d have even more problems and issues due to green house gasses that are causing all that global climate change stuff. I realize that after a few good tokes, hemp looks like the magical answer to all our problems, but it’s really no substitute for some good research. Lay down the doobie and try doing just some basic searching on the subject. When you come back, if you want to discuss this I’m sure there will be plenty of folks who would love to go over this subject again with you.
People can’t produce enough of their energy needs using their own solar plants (even laying aside the costs involved). There are no inventions that give you ‘free electricity’, sadly…even your hemp powered magic system could require folks to, you know, grow and harvest the hemp and, well, do something with it (presumably burn the stuff).
Yeah…if people cut back heavily on their electrical needs that would save us a ton. But, you see, people aren’t going to do that, even in your idealistic hemp soaked world. Not unless they can’t afford the costs. So, unless you are going to make electricity VERY expensive (and then you need to consider what effect that will have on the poor, especially in cities where it gets really cold or really hot) you just aren’t going to get people to cut back substantially on their electric usage, especially globally. In fact, electrical usage is exploding world wide, as many folks who never had the advantages you have are starting to demand electricity and electrical appliances. So, we had better figure out something that will allow us to make more electricity and do so without creating more green house gasses. We could do that with hemp, of course, but then we need to figure out how to produce the other 99% of our electrical needs. Right now, it looks like nuclear is one of the few ways we can produce CO2 free electricity on the scales we would need to take even a modest bite out of coal.
-XT
p.s. I tried to work in ‘put that in your pipe and smoke it’ several times, but just couldn’t make it fit. sigh
I accidentally nuclear power
Wuss.
I purpose.
You could have easily worked in “pipe dream” somewhere.
Let’s see - nuclear power is too expensive, not competitive, and requires massive government financial aid. Your solution is: solar? Do you even keep up with the news, other than the headlines on Huffington Post?
How do you type with flippers?
Is it a little known fact that 50% of the electricity demand in North America is from plasma tvs?
Let’s do a little research:
From here we see that the biggest energy hog is a 65 inch Panasonic plasma TV, which would cost about $90/year to run, assuming 5.2 hours a day on at 11.5 cents/KWh. This works out to 782 KWh of electricity used in a year.
The average US house uses 10,900 KWh of electricity in a year.
So, if I cut off my plasma TV, I will save 782/10,900 * 100 = 7% of my electricity demand.
Yeah, but…but…if everyone cuts 7% of their demand, then think of how high that savings would go. I mean if only 7 people do it, that would be…like 49% of the power. That’s almost half right there!
I’m pretty sure that changing the law of thermodynamics would require at least a constitutional amendment. A majority vote in Congress probably would not be enough.
Steam, which is essentially hot air and water is indeed what turns turbines to generate electricity. If we can simply change the typing on SDMB to talking and combine that with Congress and Fox News, we would have enough hot air generate all our imaginary needs.
Not coal, bio-fuel ; but yeah, that’s their plan. Replacing their big centralized nuclear power plants with lots of smaller ones that would power small areas using bio-fuel produced locally (from crops, woodchippings, domestic garbage, etc…).
On the up side, it’s going to be more efficient than traditional centralized power since there isn’t a huge grid to cover, with all the waste and power loss that entails.
On the downside, huge CO2 output from burning all that crap even with any amount of scrubbing or trapping measures built into the plants. Ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
pufffffff "its hemp, man…whadya need any cites for?
Seriously, I feel like it is 1997 again and the hemp-heads are on the rise.
Actually, I’ve never heard this claimed even on the nuttiest sites before. While I don’t doubt that the Soviets would attempt to cover up such a thing, I have many doubts about their actual ability to do so. Has anyone else ever heard of another Soviet nuclear power disaster?
Sure, but the hemp grown for fibre, oil, food, biomass, etc. Is not the same as the hemp that people smoke.
You’re overestimating it. Non-residential usage of electricity is more than twice as high as residential usage. So if you eliminate plasma TV’s it would only reduce the country’s electricity demand by about two percent.
Windfarms are rapidly deteriorating-and out-of -balance wind turbines self-destruct. Also, the expense of mainating windfarms is rising rapidly.
The fact is, nclear plants run continuously (windfarms do not), and offer, safe, reliable power.
Wind power is good but it’s limited. You can’t scale in up very far because you need a good location. Same thing with hydroelectric. They’re great for where there’s a natural site but they’re never going to be the primary source for energy.
And that’s assuming everyone has the equivalent usage of plasma TV…
Renewables are vital in the long run. BUT until you perfect a way to cost-viably store and transmit renewable-generated power until when and to where there’s the demand, there is the inescapable fact that you need to provide for base load/peak load coverage even if the wind’s not blowing, a drought has cut down your hydro capacity, it’s neap tide, or the middle of the darkest night. Or if someone else has used all your unsmoked hemp to make paper or clothes (Really… we have a valuable agricultural resource and we want to burn it… didn’t really convince me about corn ethanol, doesn’t about hemp).
And every power generating source has its issues – Heck, proposals to do WTE and biomass around here are repeatedly challenged on the grounds that they’d discourage recycling and composting efforts by taking away the materials that would otherwise go to those, and people would then be encouraged to consume and discard more so there’s fuel. Damned if you do…