1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Climate change to make nuclear power a winner: Citi

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by TimBikes, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    LONDON (Reuters) - The increasingly urgent need to combat climate change will probably spawn U.S. policies to impose fossil fuel charges and so dramatically favor nuclear power, Citigroup said in a research note on Wednesday....

    more
     
    #1 TimBikes, Sep 13, 2006
  2. skruse

    skruse Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    1,454
    97
    0
    Location:
    Coloma CA - Sierra Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Renewable nuclear power is already a winner. Fusion (the sun) is cost-effective, has few or no hazardous wastes and works everywhere. We will see increasing use of decentralized solar "power plants" on the roof of every home, school, church, business, parking structure, highways and railroad right-of-ways.

    Nonrenewable nuclear power is a consistent loser. Fission (splitting atoms) is not cost-effective without massive government subsidies, has multiple long-term hazardous waste issues and requires 500,000 years of care taking. Using fission to produce electricity, to quote Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), "is like using a chainsaw to cut butter" (very expensive, messy and inefficient).
     
    #2 skruse, Sep 13, 2006
  3. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Sep 13 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]319045[/snapback]</div>
    Interesting you state solar is cost-effective. I'm not against it by any means (have considered it for my house). But I've never heard it claimed to be "cost-effective". It too requires massive subsidies to make sense (as in the CA million roof initiative). But I will allow that perhaps you know otherwise on the cost-effectiveness, in which case I'd be interested in what this is based on.
     
    #3 TimBikes, Sep 14, 2006
  4. triphop

    triphop New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    157
    1
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 14 2006, 12:54 AM) [snapback]319345[/snapback]</div>
    Yeah - the energy density of Solar (W/m2) is too low esp. considering that we also have to use it to grow stuff (photosynthesis) etc. Also PV has horrible efficiencies and requires some very nasty chemicals in manufacture.

    No, Thorium & Uranium fission reactors are very definitely going to be part of the equation. Not the only part, but certainly can be relied on for base load. Wind, Solar, Biomass, Tide, Hydro, etc, etc are all needed, all together. We must not build another coal fired plant, not ever. I am completely with Lovelock on this.
     
    #4 triphop, Sep 18, 2006
  5. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    The main problem with renewables is storage. Solar could provide for all of our energy needs easily (assuming we could actually produce the panels in a timely fashion) but there's not good way to store excess. Nukes are the best short term solution for carbon reduction. It's not a perfect solutions by any means. But frankly, we don't have time to wait around for perfect solutions. We need to start agressively reducing our carbon foot print now. Nuclear can help with that. It does have its own issues and really shouldn't be a long term solution, but for base load it's the got the lowest GHG footprint including hydroelectric.
     
    #5 tripp, Sep 18, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)