I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many times over.
And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of installation and you would need to store the energy in the day time to use at night but it is totally doable. I wanted to see if I could find something that summed up how much energy could come from these renewables but I can't find any such info, what I can find is that renewables currently account for almost 20% of the electricity generated. So are you saying you think it would be extraordinarily difficult to have 5 times more wind farms? (I have never seen 1 in person) I don't think so, 5 time more solar, that would still not be much. 5 times more hydro may be a bigger challenge but it wouldn't be impossible. 5 times more Tidal power 5 times more wave power You get the point, it would be pretty straight forward. And many of these can be cheaper than Nuclear or easily competitive. Really where does your belief that these are insufficient come from? Do you really think that Nuclear makes so much more sense? Would your view be different in you lived in Japan? On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> "other forms of energy" >> >> Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil. >> Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term >> "Light >> Brigade" more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to >> make Solar Cells? >> >> Of course oil can't be replaced by Nuclear, since we aren't about to drive >> nuclear powered cars. >> But we can switch to electric cars, but why of all the options is nuclear >> better than "other forms of energy" just as solar, wind, hydro, wave, >> tide, >> biofuel and true alternatives such as what this list is dedicated to? >> >> And what about the other issues around Nuclear power, the waste that is a >> huge problem that will be around forever on a human time scale and as long >> as Nuclear power is used the problem will grow. >> >> Then what about the fact that if Nuclear is the only supported option then >> many countries will take it up and that leads directly into >> Nuclear Weapon programs. (*Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) >> commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- >> enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.*) >> >> And then if a natural or man made disaster occurs a meltdown can't be >> stopped and spews radioactive waste everywhere. >> >> Anyway the war in Iraq was not about oil, they were trying to help the >> Iraqi >> people or it was somehow connected to 9/11, Just ask Bush, he might >> recall. >> Oh, that's right, the reason for the war was the claim that Iraq had >> weapons >> of mass destruction. >> Clearly everyone having Nuclear power doesn't contribute to suspicions >> that >> people have access to WMD. >> >> > > Well, blaming nuclear power for Iraq's invasion. That's original, can't > deny it. > > When I said "other forms of energy" I was referring to oil, yes. Nuclear > power has its problems, but it's probably the only serious alternative to > replace oil to generate electricity, in the short term. Electric cars are a > great idea, but they come with the little detail that they need electricity > to run. That electricity will have to be generated somehow. Tapping it from > the Van Allen belt? I have my doubts. > > I think that alternative energy sources like solar, wind, wave, etc. are > currently not "energy dense" enough to replace oil. That will only aggravate > in the future, when the world energy demands increase. In fact, it's > aggravating right now. Why do you think so many developing countries are > building nuclear reactors? Because they want to produce weapons grade > material? No, it's because they see their energy demand increasing, and that > oil is becoming more and more costly and difficult to obtain. India is > building Thorium reactors, by example, which cannot be used to produce > weapons grade material. > > I may sound conventional here, but it's just a question of thinking in > terms or real, already existing, options. > I think that things like cold fusion are unfortunately still in the future. > I would love to be proved wrong, and to see a power plant based on Rossi's > energy catalyzer working at the end of the year, but I have serious doubts > about it. Time will tell. Fortunately we don't need to wait much. > > Regards, > Mauro > >
