OT: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2


"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KTVDe.21286$mC.5575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[.....]
> Keep in mind it
> is mostly the Jane Fonda school of nuclear physics which keeps us so
dependent on oil.

There are certain unique disadvantages to nuclear, which cannot be denied.

There is not one single solution to reducing fossil fuel usage.
So far, there is no reduction in sight at all. On the contrary.
Currently, the world burns fossil fuels at 2.8 billion tons of CO2/year.
We will likely get to 4 billion tons / year in 2030. An extra 250quadrillion
Btu/year.
You cannot fill that gap with nuclear alone.

Believe me. We are going to need a smorgesboard of alternatives.
Even better, we are going to need everything we can possibly find.

My personal favorite is solar-thermal. At $0.10/kWh, it's now almost
competitive
with fossil fuel electric production. And it will get cheaper over time !!
Check this out :
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/chapter1/Chapter1.htm
I'm really surprized there is so little attention being paid to the
super-clear, renewable energy generation method.

> As it is if we used fission oil consumption could be about 40% lower oil
needed only for some heating and
> transportation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most oil actually already used for
transportation ?
Electricity generation is mainly done with coal and natural gas and nuclear.
To save 40% of oil, you would need to provide alternative fuels for
transporation.

The easiest way to save fossil fuel usage is really to save energy.
Insulate your home, trash your hummer, drive a hybrid, car-pool etc etc..
Europeans already did that. They use 50% of what Americans use.
The remainder they now start to generate with alternative energy.
Europe generates 35 GW electric power with wind energy, and adds 6. The US ?
7 GW. Why ?

Saving fossil fuel usage is much easier to accomplish on the consumption
side than on the production side.

> And with cheap electricity coal could be cheaply liquified for home
heating.

Why use electricity and coal for that ?
A simple water-heating solar panel on your roof will give you more than
enough hot water and heating. 80% efficiency of the 1000 W/m^2 that the sun
gives us.
At the very least, you can cut your heating costs by more than 50%.
Check out alt.solar.thermal.

>
> Not trying to make it sound peachy as roughly only 1/3rd the cost of
electricity is fuel and
> nuclear is not a free source of heat. But nuke power plants near coal
fields results in a price
> tradeoff with pumped oil. And all kinds of chemicals not wanted in oil
have industrial uses so the
> economics are not based solely on liquifying coal.
>
> And for the cynical skeptic, the we-are-melting and the running-out-of-oil
types got together and
> decided we would run out before we melt so ignore nuclear and there isn't
much to watch for.

Right. Not much to watch for.
Fossil fuels do not re-generate themselves.
We will run out of the stuff, switch to dirtier forms, run out of that,
efficiency will reduce, and eventually our civilization as we know it will
end.
The current US administration's course of pumping more fossil fuel is doomed
to fail, with almost absolute certainty. It's just a matter of time.

We need clean, sustainable energy production. And reduced energy
consumption.
Nuclear ? Wind ? Solar ? Bio ?
OK, fine, but there are significant problems to be addressed with each of
these.
There is no silver bullet. We need all hands on deck.
Don't let any political figure or anybody else tell you otherwize.

>
> --
> We know Johnson lied about Vietnam. Why is it so hard for
> people to admit Bush lied about Iraq? Party loyalty?
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3476
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> http://www.giwersworld.org


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Supercomputing bill payers of the world, unite. Aux armes, citoyens!
    ... real nuclear disaster - but that's what happens when nuclear power ... We, as humanity, use around 15 terawatts of human-generated energy; ... We cannot make more oil. ... Forget the wild proliferation of breeder reactors. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Peak Oil
    ... >>> primarily of vaule as the source of our mobile energy needs. ... >> about 2-3% is currently generated by oil. ... >> produced mostly by coal fired plants, LNG fired plants, and ... >> nuclear plants now: oil has been pretty much phased out, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: .. What if Tom Hanks filmed the...Future...of NASA instead of its past?
    ... Hippies and tree huggers are not the problem facing nuclear. ... reactors that produce energy at less cost than coal fired plants. ... put the oil companies in charge of energy policy - since they ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Peak Oil
    ... >> majority of our economy's energy use. ... > in the same way that oil is, ... > to use nuclear energy, and that one should direct some focus ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Russia Cozying Up to Europeans. Could the U.S. Be Left Out in The Cold?
    ... the price of oil will rise to $200 a barrel. ... Energy shortages suit their purposes and will aid in the construction ... I am all for nuclear power if the waste disposal issue can be ... people must be made to kick and scream if they are to be bent to your ...
    (soc.retirement)