Nuclear metldown - not so easy to apprehend.
Situation in UK is essentially different from France (58 nuke power plants, French process, not the Westinghouse process).
Further, UK has missed about every "privatization" plan.
Seen a piece on TV yesterday and am starting a deeper DD on the number.
Arguments were:
Solar energy is fine, if it could provide energy for the lamp you switch at night. There is no sun, that's why you've turned the lamp on.
Natural energy is fine, if you accept to reserve some acres (and a 15 feet wide trail between the turbines for maintenance).
So, let's use hydrogen. With the problem that you most likely will produce hudrogen from natural gas, hence producing CO2 as by-product.
So, back to renewable energy. You can use 24/24 365/365.
Now, we must talk numbers: renewable energy -bio-mass- needs almost 10% of available land surface to produce 10 TeraWatts.
Those 10% land actually are those use for the crops and agriculture. But the world needs 30 TeraWatts of energy. So, cropping land should increase fourfold to cover the needs.
Then, nuke energy would not seem so silly anymore, but two problems again: uranium ore could suffice for 10-30 years and then would be gone.
Fusion could be an answer, but progress is very slow (due to inacceptance) and could take more than 30 years to become economically viable.
Or, you should switch to plutonium, but then with the major problem of having bonb-abilities made available to any country.
Not simple. |
