The population in developed countries naturally falls. What you don't then do, is import 10 million from elsewhere, else you simply exacerbate the problem. Other countries survive quite well on just a few million. Why do we need 70 - 80 million when only a couple of decades ago, it was 20. It's a quality of life issue. It's just that those making the decisions don't experience the consequnces.
Andy
Dunno. This whole planet is made out of nuclear waste anyway.
Always has been. It seems to have coped. Shove the waste back down where it came from I guess.
What about atmospheric CO2 halflives. Somewhat longer...
IN your flying dreams..
Essentially.
I've given up worrying about it. Its here and its happening, and to stay civilized we need MORE energy, not less, to deal with it.
Even if the whole world 'went nuclear' tomorrow, chances are temps would rise for another 100 years.
But if the solutions lead to more cost or more CO2 than the windmills save, its actually a useless solution isn't it?
You could..but the cost..and the carbon needed to make it..
yes, but just look at how much water they have to pump and how far to get around half a days output of 1% of the grid...
But you CAN. when you analyse the whole thing. The main point being that to utilise the power effectively means a far greater infrastructure needs to be built, and as the contribution of wind power increases so does the backup for it need to be increased..and because that backup is fast up down time stuff, its less efficient. I.e. you back up carbon free wind power with highly carbon producing convetional. Or you simply build 6 x overcapacity windfarms and a huge overcapacity grid to shunt the windpower from where its windy to where it isn't.
Not only is it real, its probably irrelebvant now as to whats causing it. Its too late to stop it. and billions WILL die.
The more urgent focus of attention is how to preserve economic independence and a standard of living in a world whose fossil energy is owned by barbarians - rich barbarians - and which will need MORE energy to alleviate the climate change anyway.
>
I was under the distinct impression (from physics in the 1970's so it might be out of date) that some nuclear reactors could generate fuel. They were called Fast Breeder Reactors, IIRC.
R.
You should use subduction zones to get it back into the Earth's core where it belongs. There's a good one in California where the stupid Americans build cities on it.
There's plenty of radioactive material. And you can as you say make more.
Its really a question of cost, thats all.
You can pull uranium out of seawater, if you process enough of it.
Hardly economic at todays prices..
BUT its like desalination ..if te price is right, its viable.
Thats a thought..use off peak nuclear power and waste CO2 and heat to desalinate and carbonate sea water, and then bottle it as..'Atomic Fizz'.
should sell like hotcakes.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:26:05 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Nice try. However, I have yet to see anyone proclaiming wind generated electricity as the one true solution to carbon free energy. That is a distortion.
Next contestant please.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A007970=A0378=A0572=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0~
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~
Some thirty years ago the Selby coalfield was opened amidst claims of one hundred years of coal supplies. The same seams continue out towards the North Sea at varying depths and accessibilities. The Selby field has been closed down as the faces became uneconomically distant but what happened to the residual seventy odd years of coal supplies?
Did you mean "somewhere between 200% and 400%"?
But its cheaper to import coal.
Same goes for Cornish Tin. ALMOST worth opening the mines again.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0~
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ~
They have reopened one in Dorset recently. All the types that demonstarted to stop it closing in the 80s were out demonstrating to stop it opening ;-)
Windmills are a part of the solution, not all the solution.
Actually, they are part of the problem.
Surely your anti-green stance is predicated ENTIRELY on price, since no-one in their right mind could argue, absent considerations of cost, that nuclear power was preferable to renewable energy. In other words, ignoring considerations of cost, tidal/wind/solar etc. would be better in all possible respects than nuclear. Plus you can't make WMD out of the by-products of tidal energy.
If you have a look on Tim Hunkin's website there are figures from Eon in Germany. They basically find wind power to be nigh on useless. I agree that it is "doing something" but it's basically a drop in the ocean. I expect the energy balance of wind turbines, much like biofuels, is a bit wobbly...
I should have worded my post differently. I'm unsure of the causes of climate change, and whether it will change as dramatically as claimed (if it's not entirely CO2 linked, then we won't have the predicted exponential effect from the thawing of permafrost), not whether the climate's changing or not. As soon as Africa and the rest of the developing world industrialise, CO2 output will rise in line. We cannot expect to have our luxuries but expect the developing world to use renewable energy and choose between lighting and refridgeration due to a lack of energy. The fact is that the industrialised nations of the world will cope best with climate change - most of Holland has been under sea level for years, and they seem to manage fine. If you truly believe what people are saying will happen due to climate change, then the biggest favour we could do the world is make sure that everyone has the resources to deal with it. I also believe it is entirely unreasonable to expect people to cut their CO2 output dramatically. It simply isn't possible without going back to a way of life which I doubt could maintain the world's population.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required