This essay by Dr Tom Biegler explains the link between abundant and cheap energy and GDP, and why it will be difficult to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear power is not explicitly mentioned, but it is the obvious 'elephant in the room' alternative to coal COULD provide just that required substitute. Which is why I keep hammering on about it!
This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
Post by anonposter on Aug 2, 2012 23:15:14 GMT 9.5
Once people realise that renewable energy can't do the job and that we can't conserve our way out of this mess that's already most of the battle (since that leaves only nuclear and fossil fuels).
Still, there is the real possibility that some anti-nuclear activists may end up global warming deniers once they realise that nuclear is required to solve global warming (or once the public realises it, they may never accept it).
Post by singletonengineer on Aug 3, 2012 13:18:38 GMT 9.5
Unfortunately, in a country with a population of millions, people only come to understand the reasoning behind this article one at a time, and even then a percentage will fail to act on that understanding.
So, I thank the author for giving us this article. Let's hope that some of those millions get to read it.
For this reason, I often direct others to BNC. It seems to me that this article is an ideal entry point to this site.
The world has become very dependent on oil especially for transport particularly the fastest of them all, the air transport. If we run short, as is quite likely in a few years, we will have to go to other fossil fuels to convert them to liquid fuels. Only 30 or so countries use nuclear energy for electricity and some of them are giving up nuclear as others join up.The trains can be converted to electricity, only 20% of which is from non-fossil sources. Electric cars are at a pioneer stage and may or may not catch up. Wind and solar are unreliable and fitful. Hydro energy could be supplemented by tidal and ocean currents, still filling a niche. Use of nuclear energy to convert other chemicals to fuels is also being discussed but cannot be called successful yet.
Post by Dennis Baker on Aug 7, 2012 5:14:48 GMT 9.5
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg 7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SNemail@example.com www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&... Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions. www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
Dennis Baker 106-998 Creston Avenue Penticton BC V2A1P9 cell phone 250-462-3796