'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power 615
humoly writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that while many are calling for nuclear power, new nuclear plants are not the answer to combating climate changes or the wavering energy concerns for the UK. From the article: "The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs."
Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answers (Score:5, Insightful)
While I was shocked how little nuclear power would reduce emission and the fact apparently intelligent people thought this would be a silver bullet deal, it should not surprise anyone that
There is no quick fix. A lot of things have to change, like our automobile usage, suburban lifestyle, and the excessive packaging of one time use products.
What about trippling (Score:5, Insightful)
What about trippling the nuclear capacity? What about quadrupling the capacity? That should have an impact surely.
Okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't build nuclear, and instead build that new coal plant, does that somehow cause CO2 levels to go down? Didn't think so.
It's time for the world to face the fact that nuclear energy (and hopefully fusion in the "next 20 years") is the only practical way to truly reduce CO2 emissions and solve pollution problems. If cheap nuclear energy exists, it is possible to reduce pollution and CO2 production in other areas, in addition to the initial electrical generation. Hydrogen fuel for vehicles, electrical heating instead of natural gas or oil, etc.
While other forms of alternative energy are "nice", they all have their downside - solar cells aren't exactly environmentally friendly to produce, wind plants take lots of land and are an eyesore, etc. Nuclear plants may have some miniscule risks, but when properly managed, they are by far the best solution. The problem with nuclear energy (dealing with the waste included) is entirely political, not technical.
Good to see common sense (Score:0, Insightful)
CO2 waste compared to RadioActive waste isnt even in the same league
Re:Okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Technical problems we can solve. Idealogical problems, on the other hand, ...
What gives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true. Radioactive waste is, overall, less harmful to the environment, easier to capture and contain, and has the added benefit of actually being potentially useful if reprocessed into viable nuclear fuel.
That IS what you meant, right?
Conflicted report? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain, according to the report
2) Nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised energy distribution system for the next 50 years when more flexible distribution options are becoming available
3) The report claims that nuclear would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency
4) If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countries the same technology, the SDC claims
Points 1 and 2 seem to indicate economic and technological malfeasance, but points 3 and 4 seem to imply the technology is good enough to curtail better economic options which would be desirable to other countries? Hmm...
Point 4 also implies that the UK would seek to deny other countries nuclear plants in general, or that "other countries" might use said plants for other than above-board reasons. I can't figure out whether point 4 is insulting to other countries or insulting to the UK...or both.
Talk of Doubling is Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't find details, but the study likely also ignores the benefits of nuclear plants in relation to automobiles. Currently, if a person drives an electric car, he'll still be causing emissions at the electric plant. In conjunction with electric car technology, nuclear plants could be a way to significantly reduce emissions that result from vehicles.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear power does reduce emissions by helping us eliminate coal and oil power plants. Something's better than nothing, and nuclear waste is infinitely easier to contain than a cloud coming out of a smokestack.
Moreover, nuclear power scales better for the future. Like it or not, our energy usage is only going to go up. Nuclear also makes possible other technologies that reduce emissions- where do you think the hydrogen for fuel cells comes from? The easiest way to generate it is in a reactor.
Reducing the energy usage (Score:5, Insightful)
* Replace bulky monitors for flat screens
* Incentivate low-power CPU's
* Invest in information campaigns about not using home electronics in stand-by mode
* Invest in solar power R&D for home applications
* Incentivate usage of bycicles instead of cars, change the infrastructure of cities to provide smaller stores in more places rather than huge walmarts 10 miles from home
Any other ideas?
that's an odd metric (Score:5, Insightful)
Even a small impact in terms of *reducing* emissions over 30 years is a *huge* change form the level they would have *risen* to by '35 at the current rate.
Let's look at these "five disadvantages" (Score:5, Insightful)
First, keep in mind that the longer it stays radioactive, by definition the less radioactive (and thus less dangerous) it is. Depleted Uranium, for instance, despite being technically radioactive, is actually used as radiation shielding!
The obvious solution to dealing with waste is to seperate it into stuff that can processed back into viable fuel (and used as such), stuff that's so mildly radioactive that it could be ground into powder and scattered into the ocean and you'd never notice the difference in the background radiation level, and stuff that's not viable as fuel but still radioactive enough that it needs to be stored--which I imagine you'll find is not very much waste.
2) Economics of building nuke plants
Yeah, and how much of the economic uncertainty comes from artificial barriers created by scientific illiterates who oppose nuclear power? Other than fossil fuels, nuclear is the only type of generator that is proven to be long-term viable and scalable to any capacity. If the economics are "uncertain" for nukes, they can only be worse for anything else.
3) Centralized distribution system
4) Undermines the drive for efficiency
Uh, no. Efficiency is, within reason, its own driving force. Despite what some people would like, we're never going to use less energy. There's only so much efficiency gain possible, for one thing. Besides, efficiency gains don't reduce consumption any more than getting a bigger house reduces clutter. Efficiency just lets us get more value from the energy we do use.
5) Difficulty in denying other countries the technology
Oh yeah, because that's working really well as is.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe
Kyoto? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about trippling (Score:5, Insightful)
That is currently true, but vastly increased electricity production using clean nuclear plants could allow electricity to substitute for other places that are responsible for carbon emission, such as electric cars replacing internal combustion engines.
Energy is energy, in the end, and once it's availible as electricity you can do almost anything with it without generating further pollution.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
We done it many times before. Or do you believe that humans have always driven cars to work?
Re:Okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear are the only viable methods that don't produce massive amounts of waste while in operation. Solar involves very nasty manufacturing waste. Wind and hydro only work in limited areas. Nuclear works anywhere and anytime. It is the most viable option for replacing the energy production of the world.
Wind power takes a few orders of magnitude more land to produce the same amount of power that a nuclear plant would generate. It also produces *unrealiable* power, since the wind does not always blow. It is a supplementary production method, not a primary method.
You have to dispose of the waste from any hydrocarbon burning plant, too. There is less waste from a nuclear plant, and that waste can be largely reprocessed. Since you're suddenly looking worried about the desecration of land.... how about we put wind turbines on that land? I'm sure that isn't "desecrating" anything.
As far as weapons, anything can be a weapon. If someone really wants to destroy a city, they can come up with a way that doesn't involve a fission bomb. I can think of a few just sitting here typing this reply. Your excuse is ridiculous. You simply don't locate power production in the middle of a city, regardless.
Nuclear isn't the magic bullet, but all of your alternatives are non-functional. They require the world to magically have zero population growth and zero increase in industry.
Re:Use less energy or kill all (some) humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Rationing = Power (Score:5, Insightful)
No government panel wants a solution to global warming that produces a lot of energy. No one wants there to be plenty of energy for everyone who needs it. They want an excuse to strictly limit and control energy. If they can decide who gets energy, and who doesn't, they have total control in a modern industrialized world.
Wind power, solar power, and such, cannot produce enough energy to satisfy current consumption. Nuclear Energy is the only technology that we have off the shelf that can produce the energy in vast amounts to satisfy our energy hungry society. That is why so many people are so dead against it. How are you going to usher in a new age of central planning and government control if there is no crisis to justify such a thing. Nuclear power is just not acceptable.
Re:Reducing the energy usage (Score:3, Insightful)
I can drive to Lowes to pick up my screw driver,
then drive to Old Navy for a T-shirt,
then go to Star Furniture for that baker's rack,
then drive to Exxon to fill up my tank (lots of driving),
then I have to go to Hobby Lobby for my ribbon (I mean model plane... that's it),
then I drive to CompUSA for my X-box game,
then I go drive to Southwest Music Store for my Rush CD,
then I drive to Kroger for my groceries... and so on,
or I can drive to one place, Walmart, and pick up everything I need in one stop.
The rest of your ideas seem OK.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and Oranges. Enriching Uranium or creating enough plutonium to make a bomb is a dirty business, and we weren't exactly too concerned about the enviroment during the cold war(at least for weapons production).
But it's only significantly cleaner than coal when you ignore the waste.
No, it's significantly cleaner when you acknowledge the fact that nuclear waste is actually easily contained because there's so little of it.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed it.
Honestly, doubling nuclear capacity would do more towards reducing CO2 emissions than doubling wind capacity. It's not like you couldn't go on a building program and build at a rate to commission, say, 5 plants a year using parallel building. 20 years of that and you'd have another hundred plants, enough to shut down most coal plants. That'd cut down on something like 700 million tons of CO2 a year.
Re:Solar Energy is the Fix (Score:4, Insightful)
"and causes pollution in other ways such as in radioactive waste"
Yes but this waste can be easily contained and has zero chance of worsening global warming, most deffinitly the worlds chief environmental concern.
"Considering the fact that getting even one nuclear power plant built takes years, nuclear power does not look optimal."
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure more than one reactor can be built at a time.
"Therefore, solar energy is our best chance at meeting our energy needs."
Well you pretty much eliminate your "best chance" yourself in the next sentence by pointing the very obvious problem with solar power: "conversion/storage". There are plenty of places in the world where solar power would not be a viable sorce of mass power for several months out of the year because of this very issue.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
As gas prices rise, we will see people move closer to their jobs (ie, the city) from the suburbs. Suburban sprawl is obviously more likely if the act of commuting is not in the least bit taxing (See: United States). If we want people to stop driving so much, make it expensive as hell...and in turn, maybe start using Europe's incredible public transportation. We don't have that in the U.S. (realistically).
The biggest problem with environmental concerns (very similar to security concerns which any of us involved can relate) is obviously that a single person experiences very little payback for their contribution (and/or can see very little return instantaneously). To curb the public's tendencies, we may have instate some pretty intense restrictions.
How far do we need to go to really protect ourselves against Global Warming (yes, I said it), or environmental concerns?
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the "zero carbon emissions" or "clean" people have forgotten that it is an industrial process that exists in the real world and not a washing powder commercial. One third of the carbon emmissions of gas turbines (assuming the best possible quality of ore) is still very good - but it isn't zero.
Big power plants of any description are never going to be quick anyway. It can take three years just to get a turbine rotor delivered out of a catalogue.
Re:The last disadvantage caught my eye (Score:1, Insightful)
Nuclear weapons accord a nation "great power" status. Iran views itself as the natural hegemon in Southwest Asia and nuclear arms as their right. The mullahs in Iran are rather unpopular, but the idea that Iran should have nukes is not unpopular among Iranians. Unless all this sabre rattling isn't just for show, and I'm inclined to believe that it is, Iran will get nukes sooner or later. The best that we can hope for is that it won't be the Mullah's holding the button.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the thing about cadmium, arsenic and mercury; they're poisonous forever.
It will probably make things much worse (Score:2, Insightful)
The ONLY way to slow climate change is to slow growth. Painful but unavoidable.
are small impacts good impacts? (Score:4, Insightful)
And driving more hybrids would also make a small impact, and using solar power would make a small impact, and using energy efficient appliances would make a small impact, and using wind power would make a small impact, and using more hydroelectric power would make a small impact, and developing fuel cell technologies would make a small impact, and turning off lights at night would make a small impact,
The point is there's no magic bullet, there's no one thing that will make us stop using dirty, non-renewable energy sources. But, if we encourage all the things that will make us less dependant on oil, we'll be better off.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
As an aside, put this together with more advanced versions of rapid prototyping devices, the sort that started off printing 3D versions of X-Rays and are now advanced enought to print off cell phones and the like, and you can do to centralized manufacturing what the internet did to mass media.
Heady stuff, and nearing if not already within the realm of practical. This is the sort of environment where a communist economy would actually work, where the market is destroyed because there is PLENTY. But don't expect to see any capitalist robber barons pursuing such a dream... they'd rather destroy what PLENTY we already achieved with laws like those surrounding intellectual property. Am I the only one that finds it all reminiscent of the traditional "burning of wealth" parties that the Native Americans used to throw to keep their people working?
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
People love those sorts of lifestyle changes that represent a reduction in lifestyle.
Re:Reduce by 8% or do nothing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then replace decomissioned coal powerplants with nuclear powerplants instead of adding new nuclear plants... Or we could just never build another powerplant letting the old ones rot and break, that would be a sure-fire way to reduce power consumption! If they don't have any power they can't consume it, genius!
I think you might be a candidate for secretary of energy...
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:2, Insightful)
Is riding to work on a bicycle rather than going to the gym a reduction in lifestyle? Is eating a shared meal with your neighbours rather than eating in some fast food joint halfway across town a reduction in lifestyle? Is picking fruit from your own tree rather than buying from a supermarket a reductionin lifestyle?
I know you only wrote that as a throwaway line, but perhaps you could spend some time thinking about why you said it in the first place.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to drive 45 minutes to work, as did practically everyone in the area that I was from. Dinner I cook, but then, I don't think that most people ever made McDonalds their primary source of dinner-food. I see plenty of TV dinners at work, and most people do not pick their fruit from their own tree.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:2, Insightful)
People have demonstrated being able to live self-sufficiently on say 1000m^2 of land. There is enough land like this for everyone to have some, yep, all 6.5billion of us. 1*10^14 m^2 of land means we have 23 times this amount world wide. As people become more affluent the breeding rate drops.
What are you doing about it?
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
Most objections to nuclear power are driven by the coal industry, who stands to be the biggest loser if the US and UK move towards more nuclear power.
Anybody else who objects is simply echoing the fears which were fed to them by coal lobbyists.
Nuclear power is both safer and cleaner than coal. Anybody who rejects nuclear in favor of coal plants out of "environmental" concerns is either badly informed or deliberately lying.
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Own a home with a lawn and having some space from the neighbors is probably the pinnacle of the American dream. Telling Americans they can't have that is a good way to get thrown out of office. The US doesn't have the political capacity to make any such proposed changes. In a totalitarian system like China they might very well be able to enact draconian policies like the "one child" policy, but they don't have to worry about the fickle masses getting pissed and voting for someone who will do what they want. In a place like Europe where significantly more people are dependent upon the government for jobs and money, they might be able to enact some social change to a limited extent. In the US, you are talking about a complete impossibility.
The solution to this environmental problem is not social. The solution lies in allowing people to live as they want without destroying the environment in the process. Instead of pouring money into social programs to change people and crippling the economy by burdening it with more expenses, the solution is to make reasonable changes when it is possible and work towards a technological solution. Dump money into R&D and really drive for technological solutions. We NEED technological solutions. Humanity is not and never has been "sustainable". We can't throw on the breaks and try and become sustainable now. The only thing we can do is do what we do best. Plow forward and try and solve problems as they come.
I am not advocating whole sale clear cutting of the rainforest and dumping as much CO2 as possible into the atmosphere. Environmental regulations are very important for buying time and trying to minimize negative effects on the environment. My point is that regulations can only slow down the process, not stop it. The solution lies in technology.
Re:Let's look at these "five disadvantages" (Score:4, Insightful)
Uranium is chemically indeed quite toxic, much like lead or any other heavy metal, radioactive or otherwise. Furthermore small particles (such as those created by ammunition impacting a target) are prone to spontaneous combustion when exposed to air, exacerbating the spread of the toxicity.
DU is however--as the gigantic half-life indicates--simply not appreciably radioactive. Also, if I recall correctly, the form of radiation it emits is harmless from an external source (i.e., as long as it's not ingested or inhaled, in which case you'd still be in more trouble from the toxicity anyhow). Its dangers, not to be disregarded, are at least 99.9% chemical in nature. Radioactivity has precisely nothing to do with it, and any source claiming radiation hazards from DU is either deluded or intentionally deceptive.
Or to turn that around how much of the economic costs are born because nuclear power in any form is supported by scientific illterates? Once closing and storage costs are factored in nuclear plants are expensive even with the massive government subsidies they usually get. And its not like they are long-term viable, the world can run out of affordable uranium too - it will just take a couple of hundred years longer than oil. Right now wind power in many locations is cheaper and more viable long term than nuclear power. And BTW nulcear power is not a type of generator.
The statistic of the world running out of nuclear fuel in a few hundred years is based on the assumption that waste will be disposed of instead of being reprocessed into fuel. Using reprocessing and breeder reactors, we have more than enough nuclear fuel to last thousands of years. Conveniently, this also eliminates a great deal of the costs involved in disposing of waste.
As for wind power, it's only viable in a limited number of locations and will never supply remotely enough energy to replace other forms, and all the wishful thinking of wannabe "environmentalists" won't make that otherwise.
Missing the Point (Score:3, Insightful)
So looking at things from a logical perspective, the goal is to minimally inconvenience peoples lives (whether it be by global warming, running out of oil, or disposing nuclear waste). Since this is another example of the Tragedy of the Commons, governments will need to intervene or the problem won't get solved. The problem seems to come from too many people using oil and not a renewable energy source. Thus people need more motivation to use less oil (whether in their cars or in power plants).
Solution: do what the government does best and tax; tax crude oil or tax machinery based on CO2 emissions. Let the market sort out for itself whether it wants to use nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, tidal, geothermal, solar, or some other form of electricity generation. Let the market determine how much people want to decrease their energy consumption. Maybe spend the increased revenue on renewable resources; it's not necessary, but that would help too.
Re:Okay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the biggest evil in our culture... How many people bother recycling now that a bag of aluminum cans isn't worth much? [If anything].
I was away from my apartment for a couple of months. I turned everything off. My electric bill was insanely low, less than 100KHh -- 1/10 of my usual usage. Guess what? My electric bill went down only a third... Still paid $25/month for not using anything. In other words, using 10x the electricity only costs 3x as much -- a bargain! Where's the incentive?
Water here is shared.... I pay $40/month (USD) whether I bathe three times a day or once a week. And I live by myself...
Judging by the number of souped up 4x4 trucks with sparkling-new looking cargo beds, cars are still too cheap... Even a recent (Lexus) commercial seemed to make fun all-solar car attempts in an effort to promote their new SUV.
Forget environmental concerns... When oil becomes scarce [Or when people think it has], what will happen? How will goods be transported? How will plastics be manufactured? How will coal be mined without the use of gas-powered vehicles? How will people get to work? What will propel ocean liners carrying goods? How will farmers harvest food? How will they deliver it? Keep it refrigerated? Commercial planes aren't going solar anytime soon...
Yes, there are alternatives to some of these... No, I don't think people will plan the switch in time.
Society should not be promoting this sub-culture of waste and greed. Unfortunately, "society" has too many idiots and greedy businessmen for this to change anytime soon.
We seem to try to live as far apart as possible, as far from work, school, etc as possible... Just imagine how much time we could save doing more useful stuff, how much less driving done, and how things could be better...
Or do people in southern california and in large cities enjoy a 1-hr commute to work? Do people really dream of sitting in stopped traffic? Do they fantasize about gridlock? I for one, do not.
Re:Chernobyl (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit happens in all industries; we just need to work to make sure it happens as rarely as possible.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:1, Insightful)
Uh huh...
Nuclear power is still a fossil fuel in that it relies on underground energy sources which are unrefined, then releases this energy via concentrated local energy plants. When the fuel is "spent" it is every bit as toxic as millions of pounds of coal, it's just easier for us to handle (sort of) and transport to storage facilities. Meanwhile the spent fuel presents a HUGE security risk and even after it has been squirreled away it is still a huge security risk that we will have to defend for at least hundreds of years.
What happens when the US becomes unstable? Who is going to defend those plants when the military has become disorganized, undisciplined, and possibly split into competing sides? What's to prevent one side or the other from making use of their stores, especially if one of those new regimes is led by a fundamentalist zealot?
Nothing lasts forever - including governments. We are being irresponsible to future generations. The real kick in the head is that it still contributes to an overall heating of our atmosphere because creation of all that energy requires cooling via water which is then dumped back into the rivers and lakes. Around Oak Ridge it's not uncommon to see steam rising from certain streams and rivers as well as warning signs not to fish or swim in the area. The energy produced AGAIN contributes to heating of our atmosphere as it is "consumed" one appliance at a time - every toaster, tv and computer emits more heat into the atmosphere. This is energy that has been stored in the ground and built up over millenia, and it is being released into our atmosphere over decades - you think that's not heating our environment?
By making use of solar power we are releasing back into the atmosphere heat which has already been provided by the sun on a daily basis - it's a net dead heat. Even those imaginary gadgets that would beam infinite amounts of energy down to us from space would likewise contribute to an overall warming of the planet because it would be new heat energy released into our atmosphere not naturally present. Unless we figure out how to sink that heat energy back into space as quickly as it comes in we're still slowly cooking ourselves to death like so many frogs in a pot.
There's also potential in geysers and volcanos and other such "natural" underground stores of heat energy, but those aren't present everywhere and the seismic instabilities that accompany their presence might make actually tapping into that energy impractical for most parts of our planet. But the only sustainable long term energy source we can employ without introducing some sort of "global warming" is the sun. Wind, solar heat and electric conversion, oceanic tidal movements - doesn't matter, that's where we need to focus our efforts.
There are no quick fixes! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if you add them all together, and you might just have a really slow, big pain in the butt fix.
If I hear "such-and-such is not the answer" one more time, I am seriously gonna smack the idiot who says it upside the noggin. There is no single answer!
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo (Score:3, Insightful)
There are also a lot of things we can do to cut down transportation energy costs w/o making sacrifices or massive changes. For example, you could more double the effective MPG of 18 wheelers by changing the regulations that limit them so heavily (pun intended) to rather light loads.
For example, Michigan raised it's limits and the largest food quality tanker truck fleet went from 5MPG to an effective 12.5 by carrying more cargo in a single trip. Kind of like making ONE trip to the store in the (E85 powered) Suburban per week than 3 or 4 in the metro, or taking two family sedans@22 MPG each to take the family somewhere instead of taking the 15MPG SUV and no additional vehicles.
For those worried about safety: require an additional acle for GVWR over 110,000 or so pounds. An additional axle will keep the road surface PSI from the truck at or lower than today (meaning no increase in road wear/damage) and the increased braking power from the additional axle will in most cases MORE than compensate for the additional weight - often making the vehicle *safer*.
But people don't like to think or talk about the "easy" changes we can make. Considering that the change I mentioned above would represent about a 40% savings in fuel costs ( one of the two most costly aspects of heavy transport), the no loss and likely increase in safety of the trucks, and the resulting lower costs and lower magnitude shockwaves to the economy you'd think it would be an easy, almost no-brainer. You'd think that the Environmentalism preachers would be railing away at it.
But that would require that "Environmentalism" be actually about making the world a *better* place.
Sure there are non-whackos who "care about the environment". It's one of the reasons I have a Suburban. It runs on E85. Here, the cost diffrence is usually a wash (lower MPGf, lower $$PGf) or tilted in favor of the E85. for example last fall when gasoline was pushing three bucks/gallon, I paid under two bucks for E85. When I get 10MPG on E85, I am getting 67MPG of gasoline. Now who requires more oil to drive around, my Suburban or the Prius?
Curiously enough, vehicles that get significantly higher MPGf will lead directly to a higher per-gallon tax. Why? Do you think the government will want to "lose" that revenue? Already some states are looking to increase their gas tax simply to keep up with a) better fuel economy and b) people driving less due to high prices.
There is always the conspiracy theory that the Fed doesn't raise CAFE because of the oil companies and car makers. I suspect a more realistic consideration is the loss in revenue they'd have to experience (or significantly raise the gas tax).
Fossil fuels will be exhausted anyway... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, my question is how this report can conclude so differently from the previous slashdot discussion? Coal lobby, or scientific facts?
P.s.: But I'm not sure it will save the planet. Unless the world gets more stable and strong geopolitical climate, in which an authority (UN) can impose a nation to stop burning fossil fuel, I belive coal and oil will sell as long as there are supplies we can get with relative ease. Hopefully new rising nations will not pollute so much that the effort of other's will be in vain...
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point though, I think it is still political suicide. I don't think the "stick" approach is going to win anyone. You will just severely punish the poor while the middle class family that desperately wants to own a home outside of a city with green laws and elbow room will simply shrug off the expense.
There is no social solution.
Even if you could convince all the people of the first world to reduce consumption substantially enough to make a difference, what about the other 5 billion+ people in the world? What do you think a guy making a dollar a day is going to do when you suggest that they should hold off on that industrial revolution of theirs? He is going to tell you to go to a hell, and rightfully so. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not and never have had a sustainable system. Since we first develop agriculture and started mining we have continually been operating in an unsustainable mode.
The only real solution is to develop technology to meet our needs and make it cheap. The 5 billion+ people of the third world and rising, and rising fast. We can either work feverishly to have technology in hand that will power their rise out of extreme poverty in a less destructive manner, or we can foolishly chip away at the exponentially growing problem and utterly ignore the gathering storm. The first world needs to be the ones to find a way to make cheap and reliable solar cells or whatever. We need to either get our shit together and start working on it NOW, or we can see what it is like when 5 billion people enter into an industrial revolution over the course of a decade or two. We know how ugly a few tens of millions of people entering the industrial revolution over the course of a centaury or two was, do you really want to see 5 billion+ do it over night?
Good Nuclear Side effects (Score:3, Insightful)
Coal/Oil/Gas stations would by definition produce more CO2 than a Nuclear station, however the big Carbon saving comes from nuclear vehicles(okay stay with me). By nuclear cars I actually refer to a hydrogen (or similar) vehicle that has its fuel create by nuclear power (i.e. Electrolysis). If 25% of the US and Europe's cars all switched to this virtually carbon free energy source then we would see some serious carbon reduction.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't commute for fun, they commute to afford a home. Every off-ramp closer to LA you go the price of homes climbs around $5000. When you are up here in the Antelope Valley they start at $200,000 for a prefab.
This all has little to do with the commute. If you want to reduce emmisions then you have to reduce the number of poluters, in other words, people.
Lot's of money needs to be spend on R&D for better ways to collect energy, but some needs to be spent on getting the global population back down below 4 billion, if we ever want to see things get back under control.
Re:The last disadvantage caught my eye (Score:2, Insightful)
* No long-term solutions for the storage of nuclear waste are yet available, says the SDC, and storage presents clear safety issues
Storage is fun, because if its radioactive, it means it still has energy to get out of it, and eventually you'll pipe the "waste" as fuel for another reactor. And if you don't like radioactive goo, bury it where you found it.
* The economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain, according to the report
Fuck that. That is just too dumb. You have modern, rich, industrialized _continents_ starving for energy and these ppl are claiming nuclear has "uncertain economics"?
Since the beggining of time, there has never been a better economic moment for anything than nuclear energy, right now.
* Nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised energy distribution system for the next 50 years when more flexible distribution options are becoming available
The problem at hand is energy generation, not energy distribution. Its like saying i'm not gonna replace my computer's blown power supply because i'm saving money for extra RAM. It is childish, condescending and insulting.
* The report claims that nuclear would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency
== "Let them eat cake"
* If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countries the same technology, the SDC claims (emphasis mine)
== "If we don't drag the UK into the dark ages, it will be more difficult to force other countries down that path. Additionally, the word "hypocrisy" is no longer part of the English language."
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think you need to check your numbers. How much of all of that "available" land is arable? Has water and irrigation? Isn't sand and desert? Isn't mountainous or tundra? Isn't a sheet of ice? Has a growing season longer than a few months? Isn't covered by rainforests and trees otherwise needed for, you know, oxygen? Isn't already covered by houses and roads and cities and towns?
Do the math, and I think you've find that most of the available land suitable for farming and food production is... surprise! Being farmed.
And just out of curiosity, what happens to technology and medicine and so forth when everyone is busy planting carrots?
Finally, you may not have noticed, but people involved in sustenance living do not have low birthrates. They breed little workers to help plow the fields, milk the cows, and help with the chores.
Re:Solar power is the real answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
You use 2.2kWH in what timespan? Any only at times when there's sunshine? And does that include the energy used to light the streets, your workplace, the shops and entertainment venues you use and the factories that make the stuff you buy?
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay? (Score:3, Insightful)
You do have to get fuel from somewhere... what's your point. Geothermal vents aren't that common, places to do highly effective hydro are limited, some countries lack enough coastline for tidal, etc. All resources are limited resources eventually. It is currently *much* less of a problem to get sufficient uranium than to get sufficient petroleum. Perhaps you noticed a fairly large war that is currently being fought, basically over oil? It isn't the first time, and it certainly isn't going to be the last.
It looks to me that all of the new problems that you brought up are entirely political problems. That can change very quickly, should it become a topic of focus.
And wind farms are no different than mines for "sacred" land. They rip up the surface so that the turbine can be secured to the ground. They take up the land, and make it unusable for anything else. You act as though it's okay to carpet land in solar farms or wind farms, or to dam up rivers, because those are obviously just fine and nobody will complain about them, but it isn't true. The only place solar farms have been allowed are deserts, and any time a wind farm has been proposed, it's been shot down by people that live in the area. You simply *can't* keep damming up rivers; you'll cause massive geological instability, not to mention making hundreds of square miles of land useless.
Of the renewable methods, the *only* method that's currently producing substantial power is hydroelectric. It's also one of the most limited in terms of useable locations. You don't think there would be wars over rivers and damming rights if that because our only viable form of power generation? Don't be so naive.
The reason that your way doesn't work as a result of world trends is easy. First, you can't depend on unreliable power generation. That means that wind and solar are out; they are supplementary only. Geothermal is of very limited output and location. Hydro is very effective, but of very limited location. Tidal is still outputting insufficient power. That leaves hydrocarbons and nuclear. The way to not *require* nuclear is to either build more conventional plants, or cut usage. The only way to keep usage constant is to keep industry and population at current levels.
Re:Nuclear Ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume the answer is "zero". What makes your opinion any more credible than that of anyone else?
That sounds horribly personal, and I don't mean it that way. The problem is the amount of faith based reasoning in this debate. For most commentators the risk factors associated with nuclear power seem to be a matter of doctrine rather than evidence. Some do it out of genuine conviction. others because they represent vested interests. That makes it very to deicide who's opinion to trust.
This wouldn't be so bad if the potential worst case scenario were not quite so extreme. Even if we discount meltdown as a scenario, it's difficult to deny the potential dangers of nuclear power.
So, at the end of the day, and in the absence of reliable information, many people are going to choose safe-but-well-understood over potentially-beneficial-but-with-significant-potent ial-risks.
In the absence of good quality infom that sseems only sensible.
Re:Coal is Not Radioactive (Score:2, Insightful)
"Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text
Re:Coal is Not Radioactive (Score:2, Insightful)
+5 a winner -- POPULATION is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no way that we can sustain the growth of our current global population and I'm not entirely sure we can sustain our existing population. I can't help but think that the global strife we're experiencing now isn't just a side effect of too many people sharing the same space.
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality it's far, far worse than that. The best farmland is also, generally, the best living land. Two areas I'm familar with -- rural Maryland and the Willamette Valley in Oregon -- were once among the most fertile areas ever seen. Unfortunately, they are also great places to live so every year thousands of acres of prime farmland becomes yards and parking lots and roads. From an economics standpoint this is a perfectly rational allocation of resources -- houses and businesses are more valuable than farmland -- but it doesn't bode well for the long term sustainability of our economy.
Re:Coal is Not Radioactive (Score:1, Insightful)
Which are 99.5% effective. What's left is still emitted into the atmosphere, about 50 kilograms of uranium per power plant and year. The filtered 10 tonnes of the stuff go into landfills, not into Yucca Mountain.
The point is not so much that coal is dangerously radioactive (it isn't), but that nuclear waste isn't the hazard it is made out to be, either. After about 500 years (mot millions or billions as some nutjobs suggest), reactor waste is simply depleted uranium ore. Uranium mine tailings are also just low grade uranium ore. If these are classed as dangerously radioactive, then coal ashes must be dangerous, too, and should accordingly be regulated and stored safely for ages to come.
Quick-fix? no. Smart? yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, it would reduce dependence on foreign oil, which always makes sense.
if the number of nuclear power plants goes up, the demand for oil burning power plants will go down. Thus, the demand for oil goes down. As you know, oil causes more deaths from resultant military and economic conflicts over its supply and its profits than nuclear power ever could, even after a meltdown or contamination. It therefore makes sense for *human rights* and for economic reasons for every country to aggressively pursue a non-oil-consuming energy policy. One way to streamline such a transition would be to invest in nuclear power technology.
Moreover, risks as they are now are not necessarily risks as they are in the future. Funding nuclear research could potentially make safer nuclear containment and waste-storage technologies. Eventually the technology could become so advanced that the net risk to human lives inside Britain would be close to zero, or still less risk than oil poses to the average Brit. While a complete conversion to nuclear power right now might not be a risk worth taking, at least some conversion with some funding of future technology to make nuclear power acceptably safe could work(to the point where the benefits outweigh the risks).
If there was say, an international coalition for nuclear power technology that maybe organized an effort to store nuclear waste in one location on earth or to shoot it out of orbit every year, or say, into the moon or sun, - instead of under a mountain in Nevada - most likely the international cooperation would result in a very cost effective nuclear solution.
In any case, nuclear power(fission) is definitely something that should be pursued more actively than it currently is.
And when nuclear fusion comes? Can we say party?
Re:+5 a winner -- POPULATION is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
In non-Western countries which still cling to ancient/tribal/religious/supertitions, population growth continues unchecked, aided and abetted by well-intentioned charity programs that mitigate natural balancers like disease, pestilence and famine.
Re:There are no quick fixes! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:4, Insightful)
Why?
Because he thinks nuclear energy comes from fossil fuels!?
Because he thinks a few nuclear waste sites represent a greater threat to future generations than unspent uranium lying around in unused ICBMs!?
Because he's worried that solar energy will cook us to death!?
Oh... I get it. You mean you would mod him up "+1, Funny."
Re:Quick Fix, Instant-Oatmeal One-Hour photo answe (Score:3, Insightful)
Or allows us to become complacent again?