Re: "The Only Thing They Learn" -- does anyone else find it irritating?

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:03 pm, "Cosmin Corbea"
<cosminc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:47 pm, "Cosmin Corbea"
<cosminc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:13 pm, Mark_Reich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:23 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Right now, you're
correct, there are quite a few nuclear reactors in operation, and
much fewer solar plants. Is that your argument? Because note, solar
energy is renewable; after a number of years, the available uranium
or other fissile materials will be over, even with breeder reactors.
Solar energy will be available for much longer.

The concerns I have in this area *have* been looked at by people who
have taken the time to work out the numbers:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/


Well, talk about synchronicity; the author of the article reaches very
similar conclusions as my post: nuclear energy is a stop-gap solution, and
solar is a workable solution, if we use well-insolated areas (I was talking
about the Sahara, MacKay uses more generic "North Africa"). The fact that
cloudy Britain isn't a great place for solar plants should not be a surprise
for anybody, of course. So, the article seems to support my point of view
(unless you confuse the Register's editorializing with MacKay's views).
\

Alternative energy sources, including solar power, do have real limits
on the amount of energy they can produce.

Only if you impose artificial limitations, such as being Earth-based. In the
article you quote, the author mentions that nuclear technology *as we know
it now*, using known uranium reserves provide a paltry amount of energy -
here's the exact quote: "His numbers suggest that the present method of
using uranium would allow the entire human race to live like power-hog
Americans in terms of power use for about a third of a year - assuming that
only the uranium reserves now confirmed exist.". Of course, it's fair to
assume that more exploration may find more reserves, and more investment in
nuclear technologies will improve the efficiency. But it's also fair to
assume that the same improvements will apply to alternative energy sources
as well. Moreover, those improvements are already happening: research on
third generation solar cells pushes their efficiency to 30-60% (if you
remember, in my back of the envelope calculation, at 5% conversion
efficiency, and using 50% of the surface of the Sahara desert, we'd be able
to power the entire world three times over - so consider what 50% would give
us).

One can't reasonably expect
them to completely take the place of fossil fuels, although they can
certainly do something to reduce consumption of fossil fuels to a
limited extent, unless people limit their energy use severely.

The numbers I see don't seem to support that.

Quite a few environmentalists do have a vision of a better society
resulting from *reduced energy use*; they are not merely aiming at
getting the same amount of energy, goods, and services from better
technologies.

Some do argue for some Luddite return to the land, surely. But I believe
most of them argue for *better* use of energy - their beef is not with using
energy, but rather with wasting it.

When a society has less energy at its disposal, there
are consequences for its freedom of action, and opponents of nuclear
power in particular often associate nuclear power generation with the
military uses of the atom.

Well, the association does exist - witness the current flapdoodle about
Iran. President Bush opposes Iran's development of nuclear technologies,
because of their military potential - or are you saying Bush is one of the
extremist environmentalists you complain about?

--
Regards,

Cosmin Corbea


.

Relevant Pages

  • EERE Network News
    ... international energy efficiency and renewable energy news and events, ... California Approves Legislation for Million Solar Roofs Plan ... First Geothermal Plant in Alaska Starts Power Production ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... expectations of 13% efficiency not 40% as you appear to assume with ... "A Solar Grand Plan ... By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash ... by 2050 we will probably be ready to expand solar energy production ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Re-formatted Re: Plug-in shocker.... esp. in CA
    ... sources such as windmills and solar energy farms, nuclear power could ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)