William Robb a écrit :
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>
>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and
>> push
>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent
>> fuel
>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it
>> is).
>>
>
> Absolutely.
> I heard the other day that France is something like 90% nuclear, and
> they don't seem to be having any problems with their reactors.
> Is Pickering still running?
> There are also political issues surrounding nuclear which attempt to
> limit who can have it.
>
We only have problems with anti-nukes ;-)
The exact figures for 2005 (as has roughly been since the mid 80s) are:
- nuke: 78%
- thermic: 11%
- hydraulic: 10%
- wind and solar: 0.2%
(from Electricité de France,
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf).
For sure, the masses feel terribly more uncomfortable with nuclear waste
than with fossil CO2 production, which has been running for 2 centuries
without causing any huge and terrible catastrophy so far.
OTOH, most people have an image of nuclear waste that looks like a pile
of rusted tanks that leak some nasty oily crap that glows purple in the
night. What most people don't realize, is that most vitrified nuclear
waste is just like regular glass, but with radioactive atoms embedded
between the "normal" atoms. Most of the time, the resulting glass is
just slightly more radioactive than many natural rocks. This glass will
never leak all the nuclear atoms at once! Claims that it will remain
radioactive for very long periods of time are justified, but for now,
our choice between fossil and nuclear energy looks too much like a
choice between "leave an unpleasant legacy to our grand-grand-grand
children" and "kill ourselves now, and stop worrying about grand
children"! Regarding renewable energies, the question is "will we be
able to replace fossil energy with it before we kill ourselves with CO2?".
The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this),
is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies,
and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".
I'm quite satisfied with this position, as I believe it's the most
ecologically safe (ecologists will brobably burn me alive for writing this).
I just can't understand some very "ecologist" countries, like Germany,
that shut down nuclear plants to open new coal thermic ones, and pour
more CO2 into the atmosphere!
> We are dallying with wind power generation out here, but I don't know
> how viable it is for large population densities, how long it takes to
> amortize the environmental liabilities associated with making the
> turbines.
>
>
>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which
>> have
>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable
>> option
>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The
>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>
>>
>
> I recall hearing many years ago that the Russions were playing with
> power transmission without using power lines, and I heard an item on As
> It Happens the other day where a fellow (or group) had come up with a
> method of recharging small device batteries using a wireless
> transmission method.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
In La Réunion, the French island where I was born in the Indian Ocean,
an interesting electricity wireless transmission experiment was done, to
provide electricity through microwaves to a very remote village
(actually VERY remote, see photo here:
http://membres.lycos.fr/nirrey/etsdsfr211.html). It was promising.
We may be WAY off topic, here!
Patrice
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
