Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] The West Wing



Rick Tarara wrote:

In the
near term (50-100 years) that will need to be nuclear if we get serious
about reducing the use of fossil fuels for environmental concerns.

1) First of all, let me point out that nuclear power reactors, as we
know them, *are* entirely based on fossil fuel. Fossil means, literally,
"dug up". The reactors depend on U235 that has been dug up. This fuel
is neither renewable nor inexhaustible.

2) In 50-100 years, there will be virtually no environmental concerns
about fossil carbon fuels ... for the simple reason that if present
trends continue, in 50-100 years there will be no more fossil carbon
fuels. On the other side of the same coin, the only way we can still
be using fossil carbon fuels in the future is if we use them at
greatly reduced rates, which greatly reduces the environmental
concerns.

Generating power from U235 doesn't qualitiatively change the story.
There just isn't enough U235 to make much of a difference. The
only way nuclear makes a difference is if we switch to breeder
reactors ... which nobody is willing even to talk about, let alone
plan or permit, because of proliferation concerns.

Maybe the Iranians will help us out, by building breeder reactors.

The cost of solar energy is coming down, while the cost of oil is
rising rapidly. Soon they will cross. When they cross, there will
be major dislocations as industries switch from one energy source to
the other. They will never switch back.

Chicago will never be self-sufficient in solar energy. That's OK; it's
not self-sufficient in food, either. We already devote the area of
several large states to growing food; there is no reason why we could
not devote a state or two to producing electricity.