You know, it's really, really irritating to read these comments when talking about a nuclear accident. Fine, we all agree we live in a civilization that requires massive amounts of energy. However, can we all just agree that nuclear accidents are dirty and dangerous?I don't know what the deal is. There was a post a bit down the page about a new report saying renewable energy could supply all our power needs and people were just SURE they were TOTALLY LYING!
Chernobyl is in the Ukraine. Many Ukrainians were, shall we say, not entirely loyal to their Soviet oppressors.It's actually about 50/50, and the current government is pro-Russian.
Well, the first half of your statement is correct, probably because it is supported by facts, unlike the second half of the statement. Too bad that you claim to believe in science.Well, both statements are technically true. The problem comes in with the idea that somehow the lack of nuke plants will result in starvation, which makes no sense at all.
That Datsun B-210 I used to drive didn't have airbags. Coulda killed somebody. People are probably still driving them and dying in them.People die in Priuses all the time.
Therefore, nobody should drive a Prius.
If it ain't 100% perfect, its terrible!What are you talking about?
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)In "infographic" form.
I still don't understand why anyone thinks that problems with this 40-year old reactor design40 years from now, current designs will be 40 years old. If all nuclear 40 year old reactor designs are unsafe, then all nuclear reactors will be unsafe at some point. 40 years ago, everyone said these designs were safe.
Steam-powered ships used to ply our waters and blow up regularly, actually KILLING hundreds of peopleWell, people had a choice of getting on a steam ship, just like they have a choice about getting on a space shuttle today. With a nuke plant, you don't really get a choice unless you want to move away. There is a big difference between risk you choose to take and risk you don't have a say in.
If we could expand the renewable share of energy by 59% YoY constantly it would take over a decade to get to 2009's worldwide levels of power generation and I wouldn't want to take a guess at what percentage of total 2021 power generation that would end up being. The same growth rate has nuclear at the same 2009 absolute value in five years.If it was actually increasing at 59% it wouldn't take very long to reach 2021 from 2009 levels at all. It's more then doubling in two years so I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.
A valid point. I bet that if you compared "acres of land despoiled per TWH" and put it into a table as above that nuclear power wouldn't be such an outlier.It's not a question of 'despoiling' it's a question of land too dangerous for people to enter for thousands of years. Land that gets damaged by coal mining, for example, can be reclaimed and used again. And coal is by far the worst offender.
We often hear that Britain’s renewables are “huge.” But it’s not sufficient to know that a source of energy is “huge.” We need to know how it compares with another “huge,” namely our huge consumption. To make such comparisons, we need numbers, not adjectives.posted by Bangaioh at 2:50 PM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
This book isn’t intended to be a definitive store of super-accurate numbers. Rather, it’s intended to illustrate how to use approximate numbers as a part of constructive consensual conversations. This book doesn’t advocate any particular energy plan or technology; rather, it tells you how many bricks are in the lego box, and how big each brick is, so the reader can figure out for himself how to make a plan that adds up.
My electricity usage: ~ 5000 kWh/yWell, you don't say what country you're in, but you would only need 6x6 meter square of solar panels to provide all the electricity you need in a year. How is that impractical?
Solar power in my country: ~1000 kWh/y
Solar panel efficiency: 13%
And what shall we do at night? Burn candles?Use a battery?
« Older New, From Mike Huckabee! Give Your Kids An Excitin... | Ben Greenman’s Museum of Silly... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by KokuRyu at 5:54 PM on May 12, 2011