Nuclear vs Solar

The tragedy of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan have now raised the threat of nuclear radiation escaping from nuclear reactors melting down and releasing atomic radiation into the air. This danger, along with the difficulties of storing used and highly radioactive fuel and materials have long stymied the expansion of nuclear power. The Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. during the 1970's and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1980's pointed to the danger that nuclear energy poses. How ever, the threat from chemical & fossil fuel energies have become apparent in the last 20 years. This danger, both to human health and the global climate have suggested that the only way to power our advanced technological civilization necessarily involves more nuclear power.

The argument arises from the assertion that wind and solar power are insufficient to provide the necessary energy. Given that wind arises from solar energy– the heating and cooling of air masses by the sun's heat– how much energy actually reaches earth?  And how much energy do humans use?

It is estimated that the earth receives 1.8 x 10¹⁷ Joules/s (1) or about 1.6 x 10²²Joules everyday from the sun. In contrast, humans consume about 4.7 x 10²⁰Joules(I derived this figure by converting the Tonnes of Oil equivalent provide by BP into joules). Elsewhere I have seen figures of total energy consumption a magnitude smaller. So total human energy consumption seems to range between a 1/10 of a percent and 1 percent of solar energy. So why can't we gather that energy? It would require turning over 1 percent of the earth's surface to energy production with up to 3 percent to accomodate population growth and increased demand. On the other hand, we wouldn't be injecting an extra 1 to 3 percent of the energy the planet's ecology has evolved to cope with, with the attendant pollution.

So if we want to maintain the lives we enjoy, we either have to accept the dangers of nuclear radiation or that massive changes as we incorporate solar, wind and wave power.  



_________________________
(1) http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#sunenergymass

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/publications/

The Green Shift explained

Ok, I'll cut your income tax, but you'll have to pay more at the pump.

What is so bloody complex about that? If you sell the Hummer and get a Toyota, you save money. If you reduce your gas consumption, you pollute less and save even more money.

Less income tax= more money in your pocket.
Higher gas tax = reduction in gas consumption= less pollution.

In the long run, this will encourage energy saving and investment in alternative energy sources.

Only journalists could have trouble explaining this.
(oddly enough, this policy is completely inline with fiscal conservative economic theory- but wont boost the bottom line for BIG OIL- Stephen Harper's closest friends)

War or fuel cells; You'd think the math was easy

A study reported by Marketwatch says that $200 billion in subsidies in addition to $145 billion from private sector investors could put millions of hydrogen fueled cars on the road over the next two decades. Petroleum would no longer be inflaming the world.

In contrast, the Iraq war has cost the US, in solely monetary terms, up to $25 billion per month, with low estimates clocking in at $10 billion. The US government could have subsidised the whole shot, and exceeded it's Kyoto targets, by spending the money with in it's own shores. Instead, it has gone from a budget surplus to a deficit exceeding $1 Trillion, is deeply embroiled in an unpopular war and paying ever higher gas prices. The man in charge, George W. Bush, will leave a legacy of failure, even of failing to capture the most infamous terrorist alive.

Osama bin Laden, the man behind the 9/11 attacks, is still free, and the Taliban are regaining strength after the US abandoned Afghanistan in favour of invading Iraq. Given the well known connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families, it would have been inopportune for G.W.Bush to be the president responsible for catching and executing the sons of one of his business partners.

To see this whole imbroglio as anything but the great game played by those heavily invested in oil is shorted sighted. Fortunately, the next generation of leaders don't sit on the Boards of directors of Exxon or BP.