Damned if we do, Damned if we don't

[Cliff Clavin 10]

Alternatively we could spend the untold billions that new nuclear stations will cost on enough renewable sources to wipe out any energy crisis forever and ever and ever. Wind, hydro, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal. With a good spread of those and the development of hydrogen fuel cells were good to go.

 

And before someone claims it will all be paid for privately, it wont it wont it wont because these things will be too important to fail when the private investors decide they arne't making enough money. So the public will have to pay for it one way or another.

 

However badly damaged a windturbine is it won't render any part of the earth uninhabitable for a period of several hundred years.

 

A little research will dig up how much fossil fuels are required to even set up such an infrastructure and to provide the kind of energy to replace Nuclear and other Fossil Fuels would be mammoth. Also Hydrogen cars still require oil a plenty, that be it in manufacture, running (oiling the running parts), the paint, the dashboard etc., tyres.

 

I really do believe it's quite impossible to get the energy required to run our planet now from natural resources as you suggest, if it was I think they'd be doing it already.

[Cliff Clavin 10]

Not convinced about it being the cheapest. Per unit of electricity maybe but total life cost far exceeds anything else. Government is subsidising the decommissioning cost almost to a level of 100% Much rather it continued subsidising wind, solar and geothermal. Perhaps we need to continue looking at ways of reducing demand for energy rather than creating new generators.

 

This is the dilema I state with the thread title. If all Nuclear Reactors are now taken off line because of fear from whats happend then the humanitarian disaster would be billions, that's not to say it won't be billions if a few Nuclear reactors blew up around the World as well.

 

In the end we've built a house of straw without foundations and the seriousness of the issue is now unfolding quite quickly, in some countries it's political unrest and now this major disaster, plus whatever else doesn't get highlighted to us.

[Kaimani 10]

Alternatively we could spend the untold billions that new nuclear stations will cost on enough renewable sources to wipe out any energy crisis forever and ever and ever. Wind, hydro, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal. With a good spread of those and the development of hydrogen fuel cells were good to go.

 

And before someone claims it will all be paid for privately, it wont it wont it wont because these things will be too important to fail when the private investors decide they arne't making enough money. So the public will have to pay for it one way or another.

 

However badly damaged a windturbine is it won't render any part of the earth uninhabitable for a period of several hundred years.

 

hear hear.

[Kaimani 10]

Not convinced about it being the cheapest. Per unit of electricity maybe but total life cost far exceeds anything else. Government is subsidising the decommissioning cost almost to a level of 100% Much rather it continued subsidising wind, solar and geothermal. Perhaps we need to continue looking at ways of reducing demand for energy rather than creating new generators.

 

true. changing the way we use energy as well as the way we make it is the way forward. we don't need nearly as much as we use.

[Cliff Clavin 10]

true. changing the way we use energy as well as the way we make it is the way forward. we don't need nearly as much as we use.

 

We actually need an increasing amount each year by year to grow the economy and the ever growing population. Now if the economy can be culled along with a signifanct number of people then we won't need as much and could begin to look at a sustainable future regarding our energy needs, any volunteers, maybe anyone with over £50,000 in their bank accounts first?

[Halibut 12]

We actually need an increasing amount each year by year to grow the economy and the ever growing population. Now if the economy can be culled along with a signifanct number of people then we won't need as much and could begin to look at a sustainable future regarding our energy needs, any volunteers, maybe anyone with over £50,000 in their bank accounts first?

 

Not if we radically alter the way we live we don't.

[Vague_Boy 10]

Alternatively we could spend the untold billions that new nuclear stations will cost on enough renewable sources to wipe out any energy crisis forever and ever and ever. Wind, hydro, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal. With a good spread of those and the development of hydrogen fuel cells were good to go.

 

Oil is an incredibly energy rich substance. In order to replace the energy produced by the 10 billion barrels of oil the US imports every year (much of which is used for electricity generation), they would need 750 nuclear power plants (they currently have 104).

 

And if you wanted to replace those 10 billion barrels with alternative energy, you would need to increase the currently installed US alternative energy sources by 2000x (

)

 

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

 

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

 

LINK

 

 

And what are you going to need to make solar panels? Well solar panels are made out of (amongst other things) plastic. And what do we need to make plastic? Why oil of course.

 

Even if we managed to replace oil with other forms of energy, we would still need it to produce plastics, artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

[Vague_Boy 10]

Not if we radically alter the way we live we don't.

 

Getting rid of half the global population would be a start.

 

I'll add your name to the list shall I?

[Kaimani 10]

We actually need an increasing amount each year by year to grow the economy and the ever growing population. Now if the economy can be culled along with a signifanct number of people then we won't need as much and could begin to look at a sustainable future regarding our energy needs, any volunteers, maybe anyone with over £50,000 in their bank accounts first?

 

yes, the population is increasing. but we still need to cut our consumption as individuals. the planet is far from overpopulated so we don't need to cull anyone. like you say we do need to change the way we live, redistribute resources, stop monoculture etc

[Kaimani 10]

Oil is an incredibly energy rich substance. In order to replace the energy produced by the 10 billion barrels of oil the US imports every year (much of which is used for electricity generation), they would need 750 nuclear power plants (they currently have 104).

 

And if you wanted to replace those 10 billion barrels with alternative energy, you would need to increase the currently installed US alternative energy sources by 2000x (

)

 

 

 

LINK

 

 

And what are you going to need to make solar panels? Well solar panels are made out of (amongst other things) plastic. And what do we need to make plastic? Why oil of course.

 

Even if we managed to replace oil with other forms of energy, we would still need it to produce plastics, artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

 

there are no easy answers but the way we're doing things at the moment, as the governor said, is the worst of all possible ways.

[Greybeard 10]

Now if the economy can be culled along with a signifanct number of people then we won't need as much and could begin to look at a sustainable future regarding our energy needs

 

Who will decide which people are to be 'culled' and who will do the killing culling ?

[Cliff Clavin 10]

yes, the population is increasing. but we still need to cut our consumption as individuals. the planet is far from overpopulated so we don't need to cull anyone. like you say we do need to change the way we live, redistribute resources, stop monoculture etc

 

Rich people certainly need to curb their consumption. I remember when Bono from U2 had his hat flown first class from Ireland to the US, yet he goes on about poverty and green issues etc. (going off the subject a bit here though )

 

The thing is though people won't curb their consumption and as it gets more expensive the troubles in the middle east will spread out to the more civilised countries as well.