User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Unfortunately true. We need nukes, because burning uranium is much less globally destructive than coal.
Of the Socolow and Paccala 'wedges' which Al Gore alludes to in An Iconvenient Truth, 1 wegde = 1bn tpa of carbon abatement in 2050.
Current emissions 7bn tpa. 2050 emissions, business as usual, 15bn tpa.
That is equivalent to 1000 new nuclear stations (to replace the existing fleet which will be finished by then, and build a net 500 new reactors).
So yes nuclear is part of the solution, but only 1/8th of what is required to stabilise CO2 emissions at their current level. I don't know of any reasonable nuclear engineer or scientist or economist who thinks we can build more than 20 reactors pa, worlwide.
Carbon Capture and Storage on large coal fired power plants is another wedge.
Why? They're only about 1-2 billion in a 50 trillion dollar economy.
It may be a 50 trillion dollar economy but I doubt my hairdresser (who contributes to that economy) would be able to contribute much towards building a nuclear power station!
She cuts the hair of construction crews and engineers that would otherwise be working on coal plants.
If you are including the cost of the construction crew's haircuts then the power stations cost more than the 1-2 billion you mentioned.
.