View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 12:52 AM
saltwn's Avatar
saltwn saltwn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 5,002
Thanks: 2,378
Thanked 1,413 Times in 983 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Look at the environmental protection agency's CO2-per-kilowatt-hour map of the US and two bright patches of low-carbon happiness jump out. One is the hydro-powered Pacific Northwest. The other is Vermont, where a 30-year-old nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, keeps the Ben & Jerry's cold. The darkest area corresponds to Washington, DC, where coal-fired power plants release 520 times more atmospheric carbon per megawatt-hour than their Vermont counterpart. That's right: 520 times. Jimmy Carter was right to turn down the heat in the White House.

There's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source. You can worry about radioactive waste or proliferating weapons. You can complain about the high cost of construction and decommissioning. But the reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win. Only wind comes close — and that's when it's blowing. A UK government white paper last year factored in everything from uranium mining to plant decommissioning and determined that nuclear power emits 2 to 6 percent of the carbon per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels.

Embracing the atom is key to winning the war on warming: Electric power generates 26 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and 39 percent of the United States' — it's the biggest contributor to global warming.

Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

Barring a MAJOR break-through in storing and collection of energy, solar is a pipe-dream. Suitable for small-scale applications, but financially not feasible for larger use. (Not to mention the actual space that is necessary to implement large-scale energy use.)

Wind, hydro, and thermal work well for where they are available, but they don't really have the quantity of resources to assume a leader role in energy production.

Nuclear has some draw-backs, but unfortunately many of them are hyped to be more in tune with a "Godzilla" movie than they are reality.
If we are to be serious at limiting our dependence on foreign oil, nuclear has to be a more prominent option.
This subject has always made me wonder if the real reason for going after Iran was the energy. Since they aren't making the components anymore.
Reply With Quote