Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

Geez.

The solution is to stop building typical suburban frame houses in the desert. The solution would include building suitable houses for the climate. Adobe, masonry, high ceilings and similar climate specific features are ancient but effective.

All that will help, and I'm actually in favor of it. But it only helps. That cannot fix the problem, nor will doing so mean that building new nuclear plants will become unnecessary or pointless. You can do that in addition to building nuclear plants, but you can't do it instead of building nuclear plants.
 
One part of the solution would be to tax carbon enough to bring emissions down and to include the externalities of all energy sources in the costs. If we do it gradually, people will move as they find other places more affordable. Or they'll fix their houses. Or they'll get creative about low-energy ways of cooling. Or they'll learn to adjust. I believe in leaving it up to them.

And screw them if the increased tax burden has serious negative consequences for their lives.

Not going to happen. I know you've got all these fantasies about what you could accomplish if you held the reins of power, but you don't. America is a democracy (or if you want to get technical, a constitutional republic), with all that entails, both good and bad. I wouldn't want it any other way, and even if I did, I'm not going to get it.
 
And screw them if the increased tax burden has serious negative consequences for their lives.

Not going to happen. I know you've got all these fantasies about what you could accomplish if you held the reins of power, but you don't. America is a democracy (or if you want to get technical, a constitutional republic), with all that entails, both good and bad. I wouldn't want it any other way, and even if I did, I'm not going to get it.

I wouldn't want it any other way either. But the fact remains that the enormous energy demands of America (and Canada is no better) are playing real havoc with the climate. One of the things I appreciate about this forum is that this threat is taken seriously. I do not believe that you could build nuclear plants in time to solve this problem. It would take more than a decade to build out, and current technology simply couldn't replace all of America's energy needs.

There are problems with suburban frame houses that go beyond the air conditioning load. I take it you're proposing that nuclear support an electric car fleet, too? And power up ships to bring cheap goods from China to be sold in suburban strip malls accessible only by car? How deep is your commitment to the way of doing things now? Are you willing to risk frying the world for the right to air condition? Because I don't think nuclear can come close to bridging the gap in time. We need urgent action within this coming decade.

So I don't need to run the world to recognize that the current system is unsustainable.

And in democratic America, we have a number of prominent politicians who recognize the problem and propose carbon taxes, regulations and other measure to combat it. Eventually, with enough tropical storms or enough lost ice sheets, I'm confident that the American spirit will embrace the challenge and address climate change appropriately. During the second world war, the American economy turned on a dime. The automotive sector simply stopped producing civilian vehicles, oil was rationed, people planted victory gardens and knitted socks for the troops.

But the change will be a lot easier the earlier we begin. A huge part of the reason why North Americans find it so hard to envision the necessary changes is that they've spent the last two decades, when climate change was a known threat with obvious solutions, dedicating enormous amounts of energy in building up an energy-intensive infrastructure in seeming defiance of reality.

So yes, it will be hard. It will only be harder if we wait. And if we have the courage to elect officials who will make some hard choices, we will all be better off.
 
I wouldn't want it any other way either. But the fact remains that the enormous energy demands of America (and Canada is no better) are playing real havoc with the climate. One of the things I appreciate about this forum is that this threat is taken seriously. I do not believe that you could build nuclear plants in time to solve this problem. It would take more than a decade to build out, and current technology simply couldn't replace all of America's energy needs.

There are no available "solutions" which don't involve decades to implement. Nuclear isn't any different in that regard.

I take it you're proposing that nuclear support an electric car fleet, too?

Not with current electric car capabilities, no. But if the energy density problem ever gets solved (and hydrogen looks like the best chance we have right now), then yes.

How deep is your commitment to the way of doing things now?

Depends what you mean by "way of doing things". If by that you mean letting people make choices for themselves, very deep. If you think I have any particular attachment to particular choices that have been made, no, I don't. I just realize that things cannot change very fast unless 1) a technological breakthrough happens (don't plan on it) or 2) government forces dramatic and rapid change. And no, changing building codes doesn't constitute dramatic and rapid change, nor will it have significant impact for decades.

Are you willing to risk frying the world for the right to air condition?

"frying the world"? That's not exactly what's at risk. And it's not simply the right to air condition that's at issue: it's whether or not government has the power to dictate to people what they do with their resources and property. When governments have that power, bad things happen. And a whole lot more people have been killed by bad governance than are at risk from climate change.

But the change will be a lot easier the earlier we begin. A huge part of the reason why North Americans find it so hard to envision the necessary changes is that they've spent the last two decades, when climate change was a known threat with obvious solutions, dedicating enormous amounts of energy in building up an energy-intensive infrastructure in seeming defiance of reality.

Really? Then why is it that China has outpaced us as a CO2 emitter even though their economy is a fraction of ours? The fact of the matter is that the US economy is not energy-inefficient. It's just really really big. You want to snatch some low-hanging energy efficiency improvements? Look elsewhere.
 
Interestingly enough, the vast majority of "nuclear waste" released into the environment comes from burning coal - for example, something close to fifty short tons of U-235 alone is pumped into the air by coal-fired plants worldwide, along with about 12,000 tons of thorium. Not that anybody really thinks coal is a "green" power source to begin with, but it's striking how much radioactive material is released by its use. The report also points out "The energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is greater than that of the coal consumed."
 
There are no available "solutions" which don't involve decades to implement. Nuclear isn't any different in that regard.

The difference between nuclear and other solutions is that with nuclear you actually have to have energy inputs for a decade or more before any climate benefit is realized. And when the reactor turns on, producing, say 1000 MW, you need to have a market for that full 1000 MW. So up to the moment of installation, you're providing almost 1000 MW through a power source that you can turn off. Coal comes to mind. So building out nuclear involves a commitment to decades of coal. In most cases, coal plants have to remain after nuclear comes on line to support peak fluctuations and reactor down times, though one coal plant can support more than one nuclear plant.

So yes, conservation and renewables would probably take more than a decade to fully install, but in the meantime they would be making huge dents in today's emissions. That's an enormous difference.
 
From a utilities business standpoint this simply doesn't work, which is why dozens of plants are in the planning stages among numerous utilities. Construction is set to begin withing the next two years. (Land is already being cleared at some sites.)

Yes. Utilities are in the business of selling energy, not solving climate change. Which contributes to policies that involve high energy rather than low-cost solutions. So if we want smarter policy, we'll need some structural changes. A variety of regulatory and pricing mechanisms come to mind, but I'm not advocating for any one in particular.
 
The difference between nuclear and other solutions is that with nuclear you actually have to have energy inputs for a decade or more before any climate benefit is realized. And when the reactor turns on, producing, say 1000 MW, you need to have a market for that full 1000 MW.

The market is already there. Turn that on, and all those fossil fuel plants which already exist can decrease output. And they will. Why? Because operating and fuel costs are a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear plant, but they dominate for fossil fuel plants.

So yes, conservation and renewables would probably take more than a decade to fully install, but in the meantime they would be making huge dents in today's emissions. That's an enormous difference.

Conservation efforts are not mutually exclusive with nuclear plants, and that's already happening anyways. As already pointed out, power companies PREFER conservation efforts to new power plants, and are already pushing them. But it's not enough. As for renewables, I've seen no evidence that they can provide the necessary capacity. They are also being ramped up, but they won't cut it alone. Not by a long shot, not for many decades to come (if ever).
 
Yes. Utilities are in the business of selling energy, not solving climate change. Which contributes to policies that involve high energy rather than low-cost solutions.

Wrong. Utility companies have a built-in interest in limiting power consumption. They have guaranteed profits if things remain static. Increases in power consumption require infrastructure investment, and that entails risk. Risk threatens that guaranteed profit. Utility companies don't like it, and they try to avoid it. That's why my utility company set up a program to coordinate air conditioners so that they can be temporarily shut off if there's a peak in demand. By flattening out the demand curve, they hope to avoid having to upgrade capacity. They don't WANT to sell more power than they are right now.
 
Actually, Glenn, the study was referenced in the link I gave. The study was entitled "Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants" and was published by the US Atomic Energy Commission in 1957. It is also known as the Brookhaven Report. The amount in today's dollars would be much higher.

I should note that, written as it was by the Atomic Energy Commission, the study stressed the very low risk of such a large accident. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the event of a serious accident, the amount of liability to nuclear power plants would be a tiny fraction of the total costs incurred.

You can see the whole act here:

http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/wash740.pdf

Sorry I missed that. Actually I am familiar with the report and it is not a good report to predict what would happen in an accident. Its assumptions were not really related to a real situation--but that was intended as a worst case scenario.ie., worst weather, accident, release etc. It assumed no containment and a most of the core gets ejected directly to the atmosphere without any expanation as to how that could occur. Current computer models and reactors do not compare with 1957 very well. This has been updated and I will find the info...don't have time right now.

glenn
 
I can't find the post you refer to - do you have a post number?
Here:
According to this source:

http://www.renewable-energy-world.c...693/121/ONART/none/MARKT/The-'tipping-point'/

Between 1993 and 2003 wind grew at 30% per year on average, solar grew at 20% per year on average.

So the rate of growth you need to eclipse nuclear in fifteen years is the rate of growth we had last century. If we put more effort into renewable energy sources there's no reason we couldn't bump that growth rate up much higher.
I didn't say wind power, etc. were hundreds of years old. Out of that list, ONLY wind power is hundreds of years old, and that was my only claim. The rest are decades old, as I said.
OK.
Yes, actually, it is. Cars of today are much different than the first internal combustion engine cars, but the basics haven't changed. The mechanism for converting wind energy into mechanical energy really hasn't changed at all in hundreds of years, nor will it. And while the next step (converting from mechanical to electrical energy) is a little newer, it's still well over 100 years old, and the mechanisms involved there are also still the same and will not change. Wind power is only going to see incremental improvements, and those will be due almost entirely to slow advances in manufacturing technologies (ie, cost improvements, NOT efficiency improvements).
Even if all that is true, it's also true that the market for and competition to wind power are now completely different. The drivers for and potential limits to wind power include the price of fossil fuels, available land area with wind and a very large market for electricity that wind power has barely tapped.

It really shouldn't be controversial that a small player in a large market can grow quickly. The real argument is what the limits are and how fast they might come in to play for each technology.
 
Really? Then why is it that China has outpaced us as a CO2 emitter even though their economy is a fraction of ours? The fact of the matter is that the US economy is not energy-inefficient. It's just really really big. You want to snatch some low-hanging energy efficiency improvements? Look elsewhere.

The Chinese economy is a rather big fraction of the US economy. According to the CIA World Factbook, China's GDP is $10.21 trillion. As compared to the US with $13.16 trillion, that's 77.6%. To generate that GDP, China consumes 2.494 trillion kWh of electricity, or 67% of the American's 3.717 trillion kWh. It also consumes just 31.5% of the oil (6.534 million bbl/day vs 20.73 million bbl/day for the US) and just 7.5% of the natural gas (47.91 billion cu m vs 635.1 billion cu m for the US).

More importantly, the Chinese population is 4.4 times as large as the US population (with 1,321,851,888 vs the US at 301,139,947), so the average Chinese consumes 15% of the electricity of the average American, 7.2% of the oil and 1.7% of the natural gas. This is not the low-hanging fruit.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Nor is it true that Chinese emissions have outpaced those of the US. The US produces about 25% of the world's emissions while China stands at about 15%. What is true is that China's emissions are rising more quickly. Note that the bulk of this growth is accounted for by Chinese exports to the US to fulfill US consumer demand:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/china.shtml

Or see this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7028573.stm
which states:

"Every time we hear a government minister talking about climate change, they seem to be drawn towards scapegoating China and its rising emissions," said Nef's policy director Andrew Simms.

"But a big factor in that rise is that China has become the major factory for the western world, so their greenhouse gas emissions are largely driven by higher levels of consumption in the west."

Two years ago, US researchers calculated that 14% of China's carbon dioxide emissions were accounted for by exports to the US.

Nef believes that international negotiations on climate change should move towards a system where emissions are attributed to the end user rather than the country producing the goods.

I would be in favour of a system that attributed the emissions to the end user. It would drive Chinese emissions down. It would also make air conditioners in America much more expensive.
 
Originally Posted by luddite
The difference between nuclear and other solutions is that with nuclear you actually have to have energy inputs for a decade or more before any climate benefit is realized. And when the reactor turns on, producing, say 1000 MW, you need to have a market for that full 1000 MW.

The market is already there. Turn that on, and all those fossil fuel plants which already exist can decrease output. And they will. Why? Because operating and fuel costs are a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear plant, but they dominate for fossil fuel plants.

The question is whether we can drive down demand in the meantime below the levels where we'd need another reactor. Actually, we could take some extra time for two reasons. First because the business plans for nuclear require decades of operation to turn a profit, and second because the embodied energy in nuclear construction can be avoided if we eliminate the need for reactors. With some conventional utilities proposing 50% cuts in that timeframe and plenty of individuals achieving more, I'd say that's possible, though it would admittedly be challenging. At the very least, targets for nuclear should be limited as much as possible.

The US produces 362,837 thousand MWh in total, of which 68,391 is from nuclear and 169,306 is from coal. Getting rid of the coal is the priority. Getting rid of both would mean replacing 65.5% of installed capacity with conservation, renewables and cogeneration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html

Demand reductions of 50% are being advocated in some jurisdictions. I've already pointed out British Columbia. I think the process is more challenging than the goal. North Americans consume twice as much energy as Europeans, who have by no means stopped trying to introduce efficiency measures. In fact the European Union plans to reduce energy demands by a further 20% by 2020. I don't think they'd mind if we stole all their ideas.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

So can 15% of today's consumption be made up for by renewables? Well, the US Department of Energy predicts that wind will make up 20% of the energy mix, and that's 20% of some high-energy future scenario.

http://www.energy.gov/5091.htm

But that certainly isn't the limit even of wind capability. Generally, wind capacity has been limited because it's deemed to be erratic. But as more and more countries which take emissions seriously are funding associated storage, we get countries like Denmark targeting 50% wind penetration by 2025.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46749

I know in Ontario the currently economically recoverable wind capacity totals 675 GW just onshore and Great Lakes, with more potential in James Bay, according to conservative government estimates. Wind proponents think this is low. Still, considering that Ontario's all-time peak load was 27 GW, that's pretty good.

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/oparepo...elimax Report on Wind to OPA - 2005.11.24.pdf
http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/media/md_peaks.asp

Then there's solar, biomass and cogeneration. Can we get it all up? In some ways it's easier than building reactors. Certainly a joint Pembina/WWF report that carefully weighed the options concluded that for Ontario, the renewable option would be cheaper and would drive down emissions faster.

http://pubs.pembina.org//reports/RID_report2_final.pdf

I can't speak for every jurisdiction. But I think saying "people need their air conditioners" is a copout. At the very least, they should be asked whether they would prefer investments in more nuclear to keep their air conditioners or investments in insulation so their air conditioners would be unnecessary and we could reduce our nuclear reliance. At least among people I know, the answer is obvious, and it's not nuclear.
 
Wrong. Utility companies have a built-in interest in limiting power consumption. They have guaranteed profits if things remain static. Increases in power consumption require infrastructure investment, and that entails risk. Risk threatens that guaranteed profit. Utility companies don't like it, and they try to avoid it. That's why my utility company set up a program to coordinate air conditioners so that they can be temporarily shut off if there's a peak in demand. By flattening out the demand curve, they hope to avoid having to upgrade capacity. They don't WANT to sell more power than they are right now.

I agree that utilities are risk averse. They don't want to build out infrastructure unless they can foresee a guaranteed market for it. That doesn't mean they don't want to see general trends to increased capacity. And they definitely don't want to see demand reductions.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for every jurisdiction. But I think saying "people need their air conditioners" is a copout. At the very least, they should be asked whether they would prefer investments in more nuclear to keep their air conditioners or investments in insulation so their air conditioners would be unnecessary and we could reduce our nuclear reliance. At least among people I know, the answer is obvious, and it's not nuclear.
Where do you live, anyway, if you don't mind my asking? (Fair trade - I live in Maryland, USA.) Have you ever spent a summer in a place like Houston? No, I'm not dismissing the need for conservation and alternative energy sources, but I am wondering if your personal "climate history" may shape your perceptions about things like air conditioning.
 
The Chinese economy is a rather big fraction of the US economy. According to the CIA World Factbook, China's GDP is $10.21 trillion. As compared to the US with $13.16 trillion, that's 77.6%.

Notice that there are two GDP's listed. One is listed at 10 trillion. The other is at a far lower value of 2.5 trillion. Why the discrepency? It's an artifact of currency manipulation on the part of the Chinese government. Compare that to other countries (for example, Japan) and you'll see that the two GDP's are pretty close to each other. 10 trillion is NOT a good representation of China's economy compared to the US.

To generate that GDP, China consumes 2.494 trillion kWh of electricity, or 67% of the American's 3.717 trillion kWh. It also consumes just 31.5% of the oil (6.534 million bbl/day vs 20.73 million bbl/day for the US) and just 7.5% of the natural gas (47.91 billion cu m vs 635.1 billion cu m for the US).

Noticeably lacking from your comparison is coal consumption. Hmm...

Nor is it true that Chinese emissions have outpaced those of the US.

Perhaps that depends upon your source, but here's one which places China on top:
http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Clima...anowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html
 
Actually, Glenn, the study was referenced in the link I gave. The study was entitled "Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants" and was published by the US Atomic Energy Commission in 1957. It is also known as the Brookhaven Report. The amount in today's dollars would be much higher.

I should note that, written as it was by the Atomic Energy Commission, the study stressed the very low risk of such a large accident. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the event of a serious accident, the amount of liability to nuclear power plants would be a tiny fraction of the total costs incurred.

You can see the whole act here:

http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/wash740.pdf

The Brookhaven report has been revised several times and the revisons actually indicate much worse numbers. However the assumptions are for incredible failures. In addition, the original Brookhaven report concluded that the damage outside the plant would be zero if a containment building was used and did not fail.

Using WIKI for brevity as it is resonable in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUREG-1150#NRC_disclaimer_of_CRAC-II_and_NUREG-1150

NUREG-1150 is the up-to-date document and should be used for referencing risk.

This commentary below outlines the risk at about a billion to one for an individual reactor.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news/rpccna/pcrcna12.htm

Although I haven't read this whole link, from a cursory view, it provides good info about nuclear power with specific references to CANDU plants.

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Decide.htm

glenn
 
Where do you live, anyway, if you don't mind my asking? (Fair trade - I live in Maryland, USA.) Have you ever spent a summer in a place like Houston? No, I'm not dismissing the need for conservation and alternative energy sources, but I am wondering if your personal "climate history" may shape your perceptions about things like air conditioning.

I live in Toronto, Canada. We get winter days well below freezing and summer days in the 80s. I was born in Brazil. I have family in places like Brasilia and Uberlandia where the temperature gets even higher. I just looked up Uberlandia, where it's 95 degrees at the moment, and summer there is yet to come. They don't have air conditioning. They build sensibly. Their houses with stone or tile floors, deep porches, high ceilings and other features, are more comfortable than air conditioned houses here. And they don't have to make them airtight. Windows let in breezes all day. And their houses aren't even insulated, though they are built with hollow bricks.

My first house was an end-of-row townhouse with a huge south-facing wall. Even with modern insulation it was a hell hole in the summer. Completely unliveable without air conditioning. I think to do without air conditioning, you'd need about a foot of insulation on that wall. We did put insulation in the roof when we re-roofed. It helps but doesn't solve the problem. If we had stayed in that house, re-insulating would have been a priority.

The house I live in now has no insulation. It's an 80-year old house of triple brick construction. It should be an oven. But it's not. It doesn't require air conditioning. The street has majestic old trees, the houses are so close that the deep eaves almost touch. They all have gracious porches. At nightfall in summer, we open our windows. Even in the summer, by the morning, I actually wake up chilled. Then we shut the windows. It can be 35 degrees outside, but it never gets uncomfortably warm inside.

Heating is another issue, and the reason why I'm planning on investing in a lot of insulation.

A few months ago, I went out to see a local housing development which featured energy-efficient homes. The first thing that struck me was that the designs were identical to homes that didn't have the Energy Star rating. The eaves are no more than 2 inches out. Each house stands on its own field. There's no consideration for where windows are placed. Even for a market that demands efficiency, the builders are just slapping on an extra layer of insulation. They're cookie-cutter models. We built more intelligently 100 years ago, even though we didn't have the tools we have today. And still, by making almost no effort, they're achieving 20% reductions in energy use.

All of this built environment will need to be addressed. I'm well aware of the challenges. Some re-insulation can be done economically now, some will become economical if fuel prices rise, and some will require subsidies. It's definitely cheaper than investing in new generation.

I think there's a place for air conditioning. It's vital for hospitals and seniors residences. It would work well there with ground source heat pumps. But I think, given the huge demands it places on the system, that it should be avoided where possible.

Can it be eliminated in Houston? Based on my experience in Brazil, I suspect it can.

But even assuming you find some very special case where air conditioning is absolutely necessary, you can definitely still reduce the load to a tiny fraction with appropriate insulation and smart features and design.
 
I think you're really lowballing the potential from conservation. Even pretty mainstream utilities are targetting in the area of 50%. See BC Hydro below:

http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bcep/default.aspx?hash=4

I know that after the blackout here in Ontario, voluntary measures from concerned citizens (dimming lights, turning down air conditioners, not using gadgets) reduced the load by 25% overnight without replacing any inefficient infrastructure.

You note that you worked in the nuclear industry. It has been my experience that when talking to power workers they cannot conceive of reducing demands by more than 10% or so (and I talk to a lot of power workers). Meantime, I also talk to a lot of individuals that try to push the envelope and live fairly regular modern lives with 4, 5 and 10-fold reductions in energy use. Regular civilians who muddle through tend to trust the power workers while wishing much more was possible. We do them a disservice in ignoring the potential.

There is a reason that industry people believe it is difficult to conserve. It's because they know where the power goes. In my experience, most people don't realize how much power is needed to run their lives even if they live a fairly modest lifestyle. In big economies like the US and Canada and Japan and Europe, the vast majority of energy is for industrial use--in the US 40% with 35% residential and commercial and 25% transportation. Conservation can reduce the residential and commercial heat and electricity usage to a large degree.

The industrial sector is fairly efficient in the world now and they are not going to see much in energy reduction. You can't run a steel plant on solar power. The energy requirements for food production are enormous just to produce fertilizer. Getting products all over the world requires trucks and ships--with the increasing world population, this is going to increase in the future and there is not much efficiency gain in these areas. There is a show on TV in the US called "How its made." The show gives a synopsis of how everything from twinkies to hockey gloves are made. In every show, energy is paramount. It is that industrial sector that is most important to energy consumption.

I can't speak for all the world, but I'm pretty familiar with the systems in Ontario and California. In both cases the only reason utilities promote efficiency is because they are paid to do so. And in Ontario we end up with a perverse system where they promote efficiency to get tax dollars on one side and try to encourage new users to fill their capacity on the other.

US utilities promote conservation and also are starting to give energy type credits for less use of electricity to reduce peak loads--US utilities do not want to build new plants because they really got burned back in the 70s and 80s.

http://www.cl-p.com/clmres/indexclmres.asp see "summer saver awards."


I am not surprised that the blackout produced a 25% reduction after people voluntarily reduced demand...however, was it sustainable. Did the energy uses stay 25% less. It is easy to shutdown stuff temporarily--stop doing laundry, turn up A/C etc.

I am all for conservation and using many sources of energy. However, some are just dreams such as ethanol in the US and biodiesel...they are not going to make a significant contribution as the energy balance is just not favorable--it takes too much energy to get a product. Nuclear power needs to be part of the mix as it is a proven technology that is improving in safety and has long term benefits and is much less suseptible to world events. If fusion becomes a reality, then all the fission plants can be discarded.

glenn
 
Last edited:
Demand reductions of 50% are being advocated in some jurisdictions.

They can demand all they want. It's not going to happen in the US. As pointed out by hindmost, residential power use isn't even the dominant consumer. Efficiency gains of 50% aren't possible across the board, and that's assuming no economic or population growth. No thanks.

In fact the European Union plans to reduce energy demands by a further 20% by 2020.

They can plan all they want to. Good luck hitting that target. They already failed to meet Kyoto goals.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...-carbon-targets/2007/06/15/1181414548676.html

So can 15% of today's consumption be made up for by renewables? Well, the US Department of Energy predicts that wind will make up 20% of the energy mix, and that's 20% of some high-energy future scenario.

http://www.energy.gov/5091.htm

I can't find any such statement in your link.
 

Back
Top Bottom