AdamW wrote:
> >
> > In terms of CO2 coal is 975 g/kWh, nuclear 22 and gas 608. FWIW.
>
> For Japan.
So what. By looking in a relatively advanced economy with high levels
of training you get a good comparison between methods.
> More pertinently, the comparison with other technologies (as
> reported in the Japanese study) is:
>
> Solar Pv 53, Wind 29, Hydro 11.
>
Hydro resources are about maxed out. The other two speak for
themselves. Nuclear is better. However, the post that I was replying
to specifically compared coal to nuclear. If you have a problem with
that discuss it with the Jim Torson
> Tidal and wave generation are not mentioned.
>
Come on, you want to throw spaghetti against the wall do it on someone
elses post. The first claim in Jim Torson's post that I replied to was
that nuclear had very high CO2 emissions associated with it. The URL
(and other links) show that this is not the case.
The second claim I replied to was the nuclear had a very low ration of
power output to power input. Again, this is shown not to be the case.
The URL I provided had comparisons between seven energy sources. Your
favorite is an eigth. It would have been useful if you provided data
and said, hey, look over here, here is the data for tidal power (using
ducks or whatever) rather than moaning that it was not included in the
URL.
> A few quick points after a skim read:
>
> It seems a bit pointless to me, comparing nuclear with coal and oil, as
> the basis of the discussion is an assumption that we need to move away
> from coal and oil? I think moving away from gas is taken, as the
> (currently) known global reserves are about 70 years, if I remember
> rightly.
No, this is not a given, and again in the context of the post I was
replying to, where the claim was that nuclear actually produced more
CO2 than coal (or at least comparable amounts), showing that this was
not the case was relevant.
>
> Therefore the comparisons need to be with the alternatives, including
> demand reduction - which isn't listed in the table.
Fine, go find us some data and stop complaining that what was in the
URL does not comport with your desires. There is obviously going to be
no single "answer" just as currently there is not a single source of
energy.
Frankly, I think a number of questions were answered in the URL, and
some statements made here were falsified.
Eli Rabett.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
