 merrie says: Coal is extraordinarily abundant " we'll never run out " and pound-for-pound contains twice as much energy as wood. Octane molecules in gasoline, however, are even more concentrated. In fact, they're the densest store of carbon energy we've ever discovered. Gas molecules are not only by far the densest form of carbon energy we've ever discovered; they're also easy to transfer because they're fluid. These are two of the greatest reasons we've adopted gasoline. Nuclear, on the other hand, is something else entirely. The public hasn't even begun to grasp nuclear energy. These are the facts: A handful of uranium contains more energy than 100 boxcars full of coal. Consumption of energy creates more energy, not less. Despite years of government subsidies (regulators, for instance, have forced utility companies to buy "renewables"), these same renewables generate only about 0.9 percent of our total electricity. * The most efficient solar panels currently in use (on the space station) are costly, and their conversion efficiency is about twenty percent, which is not very much. * Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate about 300 megawatts, a miniscule amount. Furthermore, those reflectors must be kept squeaky clean, maintained to the hilt, or they won’t work. * At our current level of technology, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, or wave can meet even half the demand for energy. If, however, wind, wave, and solar are to become more efficient, it is only science and technology — as opposed to environmentalism’s plan of blasting us back into the Dark Ages — that will get them there. ... Uranium generates gigantic amounts of energy in a very small space, which wind and solar combined cannot come close to. Those who say otherwise — those who are antinuclear, in other words — have brought the world 400 million more tons of coal used per year, because for thirty years now, since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, we’ve been using more coal. The meltdown of the uranium core in 1979 at Three Mile Island was so overblown by antinuclear groups that it went virtually unnoticed that the containment vessel at Three Mile Island had done its job and prevented any significant release of radioactivity. In fact, there’s really no such thing as “nuclear waste”: a nuclear reactor is r... POP... This all makes sense and I mostly agree. My only concern is the possible added threat of a terrorist attack (or earthquake in some locations). I live just outside the evacuation zone of a nuclear power plant. I remember right after 9/11 having a meeting just across the street from the plant and seeing the National Guard troops at each entrance. At the time, there was discussion about whether a 747 intentionally crashed into the reactor could damage the containment vessel. I don't know if it would be practical or feasible to equip each reactor with anti-aircraft missiles. Obviously internal security needs to be better than what we've seen in other Federal buildings recently. All use of energy produces waste (bi-products). Which one do you prefer to live with? |
View the Top Clips from July 12, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||
