maxm said...
Blah blah etc etc,..
So forget global warming. It's irrelevant. The real question is, where is our next power source?
At this point it appears the most logical and probable pathway is a short term (up to 100 years, or more if necessary) dependence on nuclear fission power stations and then an almost infinitely long term dependence on fusion reactors.
It would be nice to go straight into the fusion option but since there is not even one nuclear fusion reactor presently on the planet we better go for the fission option as a temporary measure.
As I have mentioned before, research in the nuclear power generation industry has suffered from major neglect over the past 40 years due to the bad press regarding the fear of a nuclear disaster of some sort.
The technology is now a long way behind where it would have been had it had a more ready acceptance.
However, even with the limited development in this field it has been estimated that this type of reactor could power the planet for around 1000 years, not by the current 3rd generation reactors in use now but by the next generation reactors which are hugely more efficient in their fuel use and with much less and more easily managed waste products.
They can also use the waste products of earlier reactors as fuel so we should be careful not to lock away these so called 'waste products' forever.
The anti nuclear groups use the current lack of general use of nuclear power generation as proof that the technology is not economically viable and they often quote the small number of nuclear power stations currently in operation as proof.
The argument is false.
The slow take up of the nuclear option is entirely due to the bad press and the cheapness of coal and oil fired power generation, combined with the almost impossible job of getting approvals to build them.
It is not the sort of environment that encoureges investors to front up with their money.
Had nuclear power generation received wider acceptance over the last 30 years we would now be generating power with almost zero emissions, and at a cost only marginally above that of coal fired power stations.
China recognises that and is now doing considerable research into cleaner and more efficient reactors.
In all probability, in twenty years time we will end up buying the technology off them when we finally recognise that we have no other option.
That is after we waste billions of dollars playing with windmills, wave power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power and any other 'great idea' that someone can come up with to claim a research grant. They are all just forestalling the inevitable conclusion, which is;- none of them can reliably provide the rapidly increasing demand for energy.
I mentioned that the cost of nuclear power would be "marginally" higher.
The anti nuke proponents claim it would be double.
Again it is a false conclusion to the argument.
They use the fact that it costs roughly 2 cents per kilowatt hour to produce power in a coal fired power station and 4 cents in a nuclear power station.
And yes, that is double.
But, the cost of producing the power is a small proportion of what you pay at the meter box.
A more accurate assessment of the situation can be seen by saying that nuclear power would cost 2 cents more per kilowatt hour.
Thus your power charge would go from 16 cents to 18 cents per kilowatt hour.
This is a very manageable increase and well within the capabilities of the economy to absorb.
In fact here in W.A. Col has just put the price of electricity up by that much and more, just to prove the point. (maybe?)
All these other great ideas such as windmills and wave power etc, might have some application in niche or boutique markets where only a small amount of energy is required on an intermittent basis.
However, even with the best technology available, they are nowhere near up the job of providing the gigawatts of energy required for a large economy to prosper.
It is low grade energy and the devices used to extract the energy can only extract a small proportion of it.
To get meaningful power outputs you would have to cover the countryside with windmills or solar panels or wave power generators until they become as much of a problem as coal fired power stations.
....aluminium hats on, all of youse
