Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:
So it is not at all clear to me
that nuclear power _is_ a long-term solution to energy needs.
as long as supplies are there for the life of the nuke plant all is
well.
What is the life expectancy of a nuclear plant?
Going to depend on design and policies. Real life is whats wanted, some
of Britain's are running long past their designed end of life dates.
The amount of energy (or rather, negentropy) reaching the earth from the
sun is vastly greater than any conceivable needs.
The question is, how can that energy best be harnessed.
thats another question entirely, and has little to do with what we
should choose now.
It is a different question, but it is relevant
because it suggests that energy shortage
is not the end of life as we know it.
We're not facing an energy shortage. Sure prices will rise, but will be
capped to the cost of the next least expensive technology.
As for bluesky stuff, there are plenty of vague ideas, but none are of
real value until real life equipment materialises, is affordable, and
has an acceptable level of issues. Wishful thinking doesnt come into
the question of what to choose today.
I recall Fred Hoyle suggesting somewhere
that if a strip of trees were planted round the equator
this would give quite sufficient energy for our needs.
(Of course that was long before global warming concern.)
Doesnt sound like a very well considered idea.
NT