• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Top Topics in 2020 | Main | Context is Everything »

November 20, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian Wang

The UK will be reversing its decision to phase out nuclear. Europe will go more strongly towards nuclear. If Germany is hypocritical and chooses to not have nuclear then they will just be importing more electricity from nuclear power plants in France and eastern europe.

The US has already started on a significant move back to nuclear with the 2005 energy bills. The financial terms have been adjusted to clear the way for 27-32 more nuclear plants. Existing plants will have more operating extensions. The remaining half that have not been extended to 60 years will get those extensions. Then most to 80 years after that. There will be more power uprating as well.

Any 2007 or 2009 climate change bill will up the cost of carbon/coal and make nuclear clearly the cheapest. Then nuclear and renewables will triple. Any stronger climate bills in Europe will have similar effect on the economic choice.

Stronger climate bills will cause new coal plants to not be built and old ones will be phased out. It will be the economical choice for utilities and power companies.

There is a new IEA plan for stabilizing world CO2 at the 450 parts per million level for less global warming.

Nuclear capacity under this projection would more than double from its current capacity to 833 GW by 2030. Even if this increase were to happen, nuclear would account for only 16% of the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions worldwide. This should speak to the monstrous challenge the world faces in curbing CO2 emissions. Improved fossil-fuel efficiency would account for 27% of the reductions; end-use energy efficiency would provide 13%; biofuels for transportation, 4%; renewables for power, 19%; and CO2 capture and storage, 21%.

===I think the latest IEA plan can be surpassed with more nuclear. MIT has power uprating research for 50% more power from existing reactors. Donut shaped fuel and nanoparticles in the coolant liquid.

The climate bill passages in the US and Europe and even faster building in the interior of China could combine to increase power by another 800GW by 2030. 1.6 TW.

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/11/short-mid-and-long-term-energy-and.html

Tom Craver

Market forces will cause the world to use oil until the cost of production is too high, even if we build a lot more nuclear.

Greater energy independence is a great idea for other reasons. But adding more nuclear probably won't result in reduced CO2. It'll just be burnt in different places, by people who might not otherwise be able to afford it, who aren't blocked by "climate change" laws.

sashley

Our Greenies are far more rabid against Nuclear Power than those in Europe. Further the European Green lobby has do contend with a well established, nuclear power industry with a great safety record.

Until proven wrong, I'm still betting that the Greenies in the U.S. will take a cleaned up coal fired plant over a Nuclear one.

The comments to this entry are closed.