Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:
Uranium is quite a rare metal.
IIRC, known uranium reserves are smaller than oil reserves
(particularly if shale is taken into account).
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?
well the current crop were built in the 50's and early 60s IIRC.
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.
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.)
Indeed. Sadly its all taken up with suburbia instead.
Probably forcing almost everybody to live in high rise flats with trees
in between would solve the problems anyway..perhaps cities should have
to pay carbon tax for the CO2 absorption they are preventing, by being
concreted over.