The Forum > Article Comments > Bill Gates and other billionaires backing a nuclear renaissance > Comments
Bill Gates and other billionaires backing a nuclear renaissance : Comments
By James Stafford, published 11/7/2016Without nuclear energy we would have burned millions more tons of coal and billions more barrels of oil.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 15 July 2016 8:52:14 PM
| |
If anyone doubts the seriousness of the situation then read this and
remember this is the opinion of the oil industry itself. We are in for ten years of very critical decisions and if the right ones are not made then the younger of us should think about farming. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Is-Facing-The-Perfect-Storm.html Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 July 2016 11:25:52 PM
| |
Bazz,
it's about climate, not peak oil. The car fleet turns over every 16 years which I think is faster than the downslope of Hubbert's peak. If we replace cars naturally with a mix of EV's and more bike lanes, then electric vehicles will *gradually* substitute oil for cars and what are bike lanes but a little paint on the ground? I used to be one of Sydney's leading peak oil activists, marching in to brief the NSW Cross-Benchers back in 2005 on the day oil hit the record price of $60 a barrel. We predicted it would be around $150 to $200 today, maybe even *rationed*! How funny. Look at the prices today! "Net energy" guys have been hanging around dieoff.com too long. Seriously! Extreme rationing with trucks into buses, bike lanes, car-sharing apps that can double or tripple car 'efficiency' by merely adding a few passengers on the way to work, fracking, tar sands, even coal-to-liquids would substitute in an emergency: but I just don't see an emergency on the horizon. Self-driving electric cars will eliminate the cost of taxi driver salaries and bring the cost down to about 10% of what it is today to catch a cab. They will allow more families to think about NOT even buying a car, and relying on public transport, bikes, and robot-EV's to plug the gap. What will power all this? Will we have to buy more power plants to charge these cars? Here's the deal. Smart charging overnight will allow about 45% of our cars to charge, and just under 90% of (American) driving could be charged on today's grid! Page 10 here https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/phev_feasibility_analysis_part1.pdf Climate is the real emergency. I *hope* peak oil is as bad as that article says, because it will finally force us to do what we need to do to get off the stuff, and take bikes, trains, trams, and EV's a lot more seriously. Imagine a world where Chevron didn't rule so much energy policy, or fund so much climate denial? Awesome. Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 16 July 2016 10:07:54 AM
| |
More on radiation. Smokers beware.
https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0 Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 16 July 2016 10:23:19 AM
| |
No Max, climate warming is irrelevant, it just does not matter as
there is not enough fossil fuel affordable to cause the rise in temperature predicted by the models. The technology solution is just wishful thinking. Certainly we will switch to electric cars if we have the generating capacity after sunset that we will need to charge them. Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 16 July 2016 11:17:10 AM
| |
Max, just had a quick look through that article you referenced.
I will get back to read it in detail. I agree that converting the light vehicle fleet to hybrid electric is a good idea especially in Australia where we have a good supply of high quality coal, but it is even for us a stopgap. The US situation is different as their coal is getting expensive and power stations have switched to gas in many cases. The time limit on US gas is becoming obvious. Sooner rather than later we need to make decisions on what we will use as base load power. Experience has shown that solar & wind cannot do the job and Australia is poorly equipped with hydro storage possibilities. I note that the SA government wants the gas turbine station restarted. They must have been too optimistic. Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 16 July 2016 11:49:04 AM
|
What unit do we use to measure radiation's impact on the body? With this measure, what's a safe annual dose? What's the average natural background radiation we're all exposed to per year? What places have the highest natural dose (from decaying thorium) and how does this compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima? Are natural sources higher or lower? What is the annual dose where harm is first detected? What government policies did Japan use to have about levels of exposure, and what is their policy now? What did the government do recently to change their policy? How much of Fukushima is being resettled? Why?
Come and have a look at some of the answers I've found.
https://goo.gl/zry95w