Remember: Only U Can Prevent Global Warming
That U is for Uranium, specifically the isotopes U-233, U-235 and U-238. Without some form of nuclear power, the world as we know it would be destroyed. The reasons are simple.
Nuclear-free visions of the future rely most heavily on solar power. But sunlight is dilute and human populations are dense. Sunlight amounts to no more than 100 watts per square foot which, averaged over the day-night cycle, amounts to 25 watts per square foot, or 300 watt-hours per square foot per day. Conversion efficiency to electricity reduces that to 60 watt-hours per square foot per day currently, perhaps double that with future conversion technology. Climatologists looking at these numbers have concluded that solar power alone (wind power is also solar in origin) cannot possibly replace fossil fuels fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change and collapse of marine food chains from ocean acidification. See http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html for one of their strongly worded statements.
There are only three ways I can imagine renewables alone meeting humanity's energy demand: (1) human populations take a nosedive, (2) the entire population drastically reduces its power consumption, or (3) humans push most other large land-dwelling species to extinction by exploiting their habitats to harvest renewable energy. Those opposing nuclear power are obligated to explain which of these visions of the future they prefer, and chart at least one realistic path toward achieving that vision in the very near future.
If nuclear power didn't exist, I would prefer a variation on scenario (1), in which human populations on Earth take a nosedive, as most people migrate to habitats in space to maintain their energy-intensive life styles. That option may or may not be viable over the long haul, depending on how well their artificial biospheres function in space, but at least it would limit the severity of Earth's sixth mass extinction by directing the human population explosion off-planet.
Fortunately nuclear power does exist, so there is no need to bet our collective future on the viability of artificial biospheres. Nuclear power has such a small footprint per kilowatt-hour that it would permit the entire population of Earth to enjoy a high standard of living without endangering the biosphere. But nuclear power can only save us from global warming if we harness it intelligently. To date it has been harnessed so stupidly that the majority of people regard it as more dangerous to life on Earth than renewables. Little do they realize how much safer nuclear power has proved to be, on a per kilowatt-hour basis, than all other forms of power generation. This safety record is largely invisible to the general public because it emerges from economic studies and insurance company statistics, not the stuff of exciting news stories like the high-profile disasters at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There are thousands of ways to produce nuclear power, many of which are far safer than the solid-fuel light-water reactors that figured in these disasters. Just Google on "Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor" to learn about one of the most promising.
Nuclear-free visions of the future rely most heavily on solar power. But sunlight is dilute and human populations are dense. Sunlight amounts to no more than 100 watts per square foot which, averaged over the day-night cycle, amounts to 25 watts per square foot, or 300 watt-hours per square foot per day. Conversion efficiency to electricity reduces that to 60 watt-hours per square foot per day currently, perhaps double that with future conversion technology. Climatologists looking at these numbers have concluded that solar power alone (wind power is also solar in origin) cannot possibly replace fossil fuels fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change and collapse of marine food chains from ocean acidification. See http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html for one of their strongly worded statements.
There are only three ways I can imagine renewables alone meeting humanity's energy demand: (1) human populations take a nosedive, (2) the entire population drastically reduces its power consumption, or (3) humans push most other large land-dwelling species to extinction by exploiting their habitats to harvest renewable energy. Those opposing nuclear power are obligated to explain which of these visions of the future they prefer, and chart at least one realistic path toward achieving that vision in the very near future.
If nuclear power didn't exist, I would prefer a variation on scenario (1), in which human populations on Earth take a nosedive, as most people migrate to habitats in space to maintain their energy-intensive life styles. That option may or may not be viable over the long haul, depending on how well their artificial biospheres function in space, but at least it would limit the severity of Earth's sixth mass extinction by directing the human population explosion off-planet.
Fortunately nuclear power does exist, so there is no need to bet our collective future on the viability of artificial biospheres. Nuclear power has such a small footprint per kilowatt-hour that it would permit the entire population of Earth to enjoy a high standard of living without endangering the biosphere. But nuclear power can only save us from global warming if we harness it intelligently. To date it has been harnessed so stupidly that the majority of people regard it as more dangerous to life on Earth than renewables. Little do they realize how much safer nuclear power has proved to be, on a per kilowatt-hour basis, than all other forms of power generation. This safety record is largely invisible to the general public because it emerges from economic studies and insurance company statistics, not the stuff of exciting news stories like the high-profile disasters at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There are thousands of ways to produce nuclear power, many of which are far safer than the solid-fuel light-water reactors that figured in these disasters. Just Google on "Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor" to learn about one of the most promising.
posted by Michael Pelizzari at 7:11 PM
2 Comments:
Hello. I agree that nuclear power is the way to go. Just not in earthquake zones. What were they thinking?
Nuclear reactors are engineered to withstand the strongest earthquakes likely to shake the proposed site.
Even the one at Fukushima was designed properly, but the seawall protecting it from tsunamis was reduced from the design height to save money. That was a management decision at Tepco, and the Japanese government was too cozy with industry to challenge it.
Post a Comment
<< Home