


Elon Musk
However, study fails to account for certain critical aspects









Outside cost, other issues are also worth noting, though.


Comments     Threshold


Nuclear power
By bildan on 5/31/2010 6:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is the only option on the table. Solar and wind can never meet the expanding demand for electric power. Yes, it has problems but none as dire as coal.

If not nuclear, it will be coal. The anti-nuke types have to wake up and smell the coffee.

RE: Nuclear power
By lelias2k on 5/31/2010 7:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
Never say never... ;)

RE: Nuclear power
By wuZheng on 5/31/2010 7:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
I would figure its less of a problem in China to go nuke, in fact they're jumping all over that stuff. Public opinion against anything the government proposes? Pffft, you will get nuclear power whether you like it or not. Which is actually something I'd wish they would do here for nuclear, this "environmental/ecological" debate is getting ridiculous.

RE: Nuclear power
By zaki on 6/1/2010 9:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
agreed...with the EXCEPTION of something dramatic happening in solar power, like harvesting in space.

RE: Nuclear power

RE: Nuclear power
By ValorMorghulis on 6/1/2010 10:49:01 AM , Rating: 1
I personally consider myself an environmentalist and I am in favor of nuclear fission power. Particularly the smaller self-contained fission reactors like Toshiba's 4S. Unfortunately, at some point we will run out of Uranium and if we switch over to nuclear power entirely it won't last very long. Eventually we will need not only a clean power source, but one that is renewable.

Nuclear fission can be a stopgap, but it won't last forever.

RE: Nuclear power
By Keeir on 6/1/2010 5:13:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, your right. Nuclear power could only provide the entire world's current power output for hundreds of years. (Even with increasing power needs, Nuclear could provide 80%+ of power for more years than since the "discovery" of electricity)

Yes, there is only so much Uranium in the world. But Uranium isn't the only material that can be used in Nuclear Power Plants.

RE: Nuclear power
By monkeyman1140 on 6/2/2010 12:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is no panacea, we are running out of uranium too. Manufacturing nuclear weapons uses nowhere near as much uranium as energy production does.

RE: Nuclear power
By Samus on 6/2/2010 2:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate the fact that somebody mentioned this. Some reports indicate there is as little as 50 years of Uranium left to mine on the planet.

RE: Nuclear power
By elukac on 6/2/2010 10:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is not, and never will be, clean.
I would recommend you to read the [Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security] study by Mark Z. Jacobson.

Regarding the relation between nuclear power and CO2 emissions, the study is a compilation of no less than 103 previous studies on that topic. The end result is that on average, nuclear is emitting 24 times more CO2 per KW than wind energy (yes, that's 2400%).
The hidden CO2 in nuclear energy production comes from mining, enrichment, transport and waste disposal as well as construction, operation, and decommissioning of the reactors.
Even not mentioning the intractable problem of storing the nuclear waste, it can't be a good idea.

Ultimately, nuclear is a fossil energy as any other. At the current consumption rate, the uranium will be depleted in around 30 years. Rushing to build many new power plants is financially wrong as the return on investment could never be attained.
I don't say there is an easy solution, but nuclear doesn't make sense environmentally or financially.

