Quote:
Originally Posted by mswhin63
I saw that episode as well and was suitably impressed, although I don't completely agree with Nuclear, the Solar concept mention in the program was still quite some time away from full development. It would not provide as much power as the PV panels currently available.
If need action we need to find the fastest actionable solution. Gas only has a 30% reduction, so nuclear seems to be the best and should only best used to replace the existing coal stations first. In the meantime i could see better use for government funds to help the solar research and maybe by the time 3 or 4 power station are complete we may see th end of Nuclear, or maybe Fusion reactors would be developed as mentioned in the program "How to make a Sun on Earth".
For those that really need action on climate change Nuclear is the fastest and so far the best.
|
Malcom I am against anything to do with destroying resources that cannot be retrieved. The burning of coal, LPG and crude for energy is criminal in my view. From the perspective of chemistry there are so many essential compounds that we simply cannot make in a lab that will be lost when these fuels are exhausted. The only other viable source is trees, what next a new global easter island? We only have small reserves of uranium and I will bet as soon as we use that up another essential requirement will be found which we will not be able to do due to lack of resources. The sun has powered this planet for millions of years, when will we the "wise ones" work that out. The technology is here now though expensive as it may be. What will be the cost of going on our merry way? I do not believe fusion will ever be a viable source of energy on Earth but why bother? we have a great big burning star thats doing all the work for us. Note that the OPEC nations who consider themselves as the worlds energy suppliers are planning on continuing to do so when the oil runs out. What are they investing in, nuclear technologies? No solar is where their money is going.
Mark