Actually, nuclear doesn't even work to solve the CO2 problem anyway. Right now, over its lifetime, because of uranium ore processing and various other fossil energy costs, a nuclear plant produces about 1/3 as much CO2 as a natural gas power plant. However, just as oil has a peak, so does uranium. Uranium ore is rapidly becoming less and less pure, and so refining it takes more and more fossil energy inputs. If we were to begin a shift completely from fossil fuels to nuclear, this peak uranium purity issue would result in every new nuclear power plant producing the -same- amount of CO2 as a natural gas power plant, just 10 years into the process. And since hundreds of power plants would be required (but can't possibly be built in those numbers) to beat the onset of major climate crises in any case; nuclear power plants would be a ridiculous strategy even if they -were- carbon neutral... cheers Eric done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"The fact is that someday, the world will run out of oil, gas, and coal. The fact is that solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric have scalability and geographic limitations. The fact is that there is no free hydrogen gas on earth, it must be manufactured with an input of energy.
"The other often talked about alternative, biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, have a hidden darkside. They are great products in some situations. The darkside appears when production of biofuels is increased to the levels necessary to replace oil and other fossil fuels. Without massive and unprecedented investment into water projects to bring water to the deserts (which incidently would cause the earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and hence cause the globe to warm).
"The price of food and fuel will no longer be loosely coupled as it is today. It will become strongly coupled. Food prices will soar. That is not a big problem for the developed world, but in the third world, people will necessarily starve. Just giving them money to buy food does not increase the supply of food because the price of fuel and food will simultaneously increase. Filling up one's gas tank may cost $100. But that $100 represents maybe $50 of food that will not be grown. To people living on less than $1 per day, that is a problem."
-Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine)
^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#^#
The above quote is from Chuck DeVore's blog <http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/04/more_nuclear_po.html>http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/04/more_nuclear_po.html
His blog is quite revealing and says quite a bit, like the above, that I can agree with. Of course, taking us down nuclear lane is a severe wrong turn.
He obviously needs to come to terms with the waste issue, and not much said about the terrorist magnet that is nuclear power. In part of his post, he lays out to the tenth of a cent how much we'll save with a nuclear economy. He presupposes no accidents, presupposes no increases in the cost of a never-ending supply of nuclear fuel. This despite the 1000% increase in uranium yellowcake prices just since 2001.
I just hope there is enough held in common that we can find ways to bridge differences between us, and begin to pattern a politics of cooperation instead of division.
Idealistic but not hopeful,
Don
_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability