I’m all for geothermal and hydro and windmills, sun-panels, etc. I’m also for subsidizing such to a certain extend. I would just prefer that the nuclear is not removed from the system until such clean technologies cover the whole electricity need, and that if there is a need which it is felt cannot be covered by renewable, then that we should chose nuclear before coal. Like for instance the Greens in Germany I referred to before. That, if it is correct – else use it as a hypothetical example – wants to work towards changing the German electricity mix from 60% fossil fuel/20% nuclear/20% renewable to 60%/40% renewable, where I think a much more desirable and also greener target would be 40% fossil/20% nuclear/40% renewable.
I think it is obvious that we should shut down all of the aging nuclear plants right away. They clearly aren’t safe, and they absolutely need to be shut-down
Then, we’ll see how popular the anti-nuclear power crowd is when energy prices and CO2 emissions skyrocket because the only viable replacement is coal. I expect nuclear power would become really popular very quickly.
The best position the nuclear power advocates can take is to call their bluff.
Otherwise known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I wish I could go fishing in the river for dinner like my grandfather used to instead of going to Wal Mart 
I hate to say it but unless your grandfather was born before the Civil War or lived scores of miles from any factory or city, he probably brought home fish which had some industrial pollution in them.
Not at all. Those plants aren’t doing the nuclear power industry any favors. They are a disaster waiting to happen. They need to be shut down. I am 100% for shutting them all down as soon as possible. If the anti-nuclear power advocates really do have a viable alternative that’s great. In fact, it’s the best outcome of all. If they don’t, I have no doubt much much safer nuclear power plants will be built very quickly.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as 100% safe nuclear power, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it until some of the other renewable energy sources mature. Fossil fuels are a lot scarier than what’s happening in Japan.
I’d go along with a hard push to get them updated or replaced, but not arbitrary shutdown and whatever associated carnage that entails.
Efficiency. The world only gets something like 6% of its energy from nuke. Efficiency improvements would cost less and result in a far greater energy savings than the 6% nuke contributes.
the point you missed was that it isn’t nuke vs. coal. There are lots of areas in the world where a nuke plant wouldn’t make a lick of sense, even if the local government could afford one, and the country-wide infrastructure improvements and energy transmission lines that would be required. Plus concerns about uranium mining, uranium refining and enrichment, transport and handling of nuclear materials, education and training of nuclear-qualified operators, and let’s not forget long-term storage issues. And proliferation. And terrorism.
Do you have a cite for someone saying we should get the majority of our energy from coal for the next 50-60 years? Also, the world gets more energy from oil than coil. What’s your global warming plan for replacing that?
And if you conserve 6 percent, AND keep the 6 percent nukes, you can cut fossil fuel consumption 12 percent.
I hope I live another hundred years to see how fucked up the world is due to global warming just so I can say I told you so before I pass into the night.
Don’t confuse energy conservation with efficiency.
Conservation is turning the heat off and shivering under 20 pounds of sweaters and sweatpants.
Efficiency is that new refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer & dryer, TV, computer, thermostat, etc. using less energy you never miss, and over the long-term, your wallet really appreciates.
It is so dishonest to claim antinukers want us to run more coal plants. That is not the answer. A big part is conservation, but that is an unAmerican concept. More, more and then more is how we operate.
But a combination of conservation, wind and solar can make headway into our energy use immediately…
Does anyone think new technologies will not come along? They are being developed now. But old fashioned technology like nuke is not the answer. But nukers will defend it until our last mutation. But it is just not the answer. It costs too much and delivers too little. It also is very dangerous.
And that still doesnt change the math one iota. Save/conserve/whatever the hell you wanna call it AND use nuclear still results in less CO2 produced than doing just one or the other.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Efficiency. The world only gets something like 6% of its energy from nuke. Efficiency improvements would cost less and result in a far greater energy savings than the 6% nuke contributes.
[/QUOTE]
I’m all for efficiency in the grid and in the home/factory/work place. Huge fan. No way is efficiency going to get us to large reductions in our use of coal as a primary energy source for the generation of electrical power. No. Way.
Um…the part you are missing is that the US isn’t really like Iceland at all. Nor are other countries. In the US (a continental sized nation), there are places where wind and solar make sense…and lots of places where one or both don’t make any sense at all. So, in the real world it DOES come down to nuke vs coal…especially in countries like the US. Or France. Or, in countries like China they do both…build a boat load of coal plants AND a bunch of modern nuclear. And solar. And wind. And hydro. And everything else they can build to try and ramp up their energy needs as quickly as they can.
And, what it boils down to is that coal is just cheaper. So, if you take nuclear out of the picture, what we are left with is coal, natural gas (for as long as it lasts), hydro (if you are cool with the Chinese approach to development), and some niche energy producers like wind and solar that will add to the mix but will never be major providers.
I’m sure I could dig one up if you really didn’t know this, but what else is there if you take nuclear out of the equation? There are huge deposits of coal throughout the world. It’s cheap to mine, and coal fired plants (without CC or other environmental devices) are the cheapest option and will continue to be.
As for oil, the world gets more energy from it, but not in the generation of POWER. As I pointed out before.
What’s my global warming strategy for replacing coal? Build a butt load of nuclear plants augmented heavily with wind and solar where it makes sense, and do a lot of that efficiency stuff you mentioned. MAYBE we could knock coal back to 20-25% of the produced energy in a country like the US…if we tried REALLY REALLY hard.
-XT
What do you suppose Fukushima’s carbon footprint is right now? It can’t be good, especially if this goes possibly for years.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Bless your heart.
Cutting energy by a small amount is reasonable, but you are correct that telling everyone to cut their energy usage by a large amount is a political loser. Close the nuclear plants and energy prices will rise. That will force the energy cuts you want.
[/quote]
I recently demonstrated that current solar power will require about 1000 square miles (9478 to be precise) of solar panels at peak power production to cover US power needs. All solar panels require a transparent conductor. Currently, the only practical transparent conductor is indium tin oxide.
Weight of ITO is 90% Indium Oxide (In2O3 MW 277.64) Density ~ 7140 kg/m3
229.64/277.64 = 82.7% Indium by weight in In2O3 x 0.90 = 74.4% Indium by weight in ITO
Let’s assume a 1 micron layer of ITO. Certainly it’s within an order of magnitude since I expect quantum effects start causing issues for this type of condictor at < 100 nm.
1 micron = 1x10^-6 meters
2.59^6 x 1x10^-6 = 2.59 m3 x 7140 kg/m3 = 18,492.6 kg
That’s 18,492 kg/sq mile of solar panels x 9478 sqmiles = 1.753x10^8 kg = 1.75x10^5 metric tons of indium.
World Indium production was 510 metric tons in 2007.
http://www.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2008/mcs2008.pdf
So… good luck getting something useful out of that.
Yes. In fact, I personally am developing a replacement for ITO. So is everyone in the LCD, plasma and LED display market. Suprisingly, there is a lot of money going into this problem. There are limited replacements for ITO, but they are no where near ready for solar power. An economically viable replacement is years off and that’s with massive corporate funding.
Thats just one hurdle for solar power.
You demonstrate with actual numbers that any of your preferred power sources are politically viable, and I will happily concede.
First ya got to build it. That’s carbon. Then you gotta mine. That’s carbon. Then it fucks up and requires lots and lots of carbon to render it safe enough to dismantle/sarcophagize, which is more carbon - that plant is rapidly spending any “carbon credit” it had saved up, and by the time this is all over it will owe.
That was a lot of work, but I don’t think many people are suggesting we get all our power needs from solar. Why would we?
What fraction would you like? Let’s work it out.
And all that silicon and copper and cement and other stuff for solar, wind, and hydro just appeared out of thin air?
Do some calcs sparky. Tell me whats the max amount of C02 produced as a result of cleaning up this disaster. Then tell me how much CO2 WASN’T produced because this was a nuclear plant, not a coal plant over its 40 year lifetime. Then, average that over the hundreds of other nuclear plants that haven’t had a disaster and probably won’t.