Good points you have made. However, I'd like to defend my original post:
1. Even though nuclear waste can be contained somewhat safely, I think it would become a much bigger issue when hundreds of thousands of nuclear power plants start producing wastes that take thousands to millions of years to fully decay. Even though, the amount of "global warming" pollutants may be reduced, this is a trade off with the introduction of more radioactive waste.
2. My point there was that it takes many years to get by regulations to even start building a nuclear power plant. Even then, it'll take another few years for the plant to complete. It doesn't seem likely that the construction of 10,000 nuclear power plants will start construction within days of each other. Suppose you construct a batch every 5 years, then you need to start with 1000 new constructions every 5 years which still seems unfeasable.
3. Right, solar energy is our best chance. No other power source has been estimated to have the scalability to meet our energy needs in 50 years. Being our "best chance" does not mean that all associated hurdles have been solved. That's why I mentioned solar energy storage as fuels. Significant research is being conducted today on converting solar energy into a fuel (kind of like photosynthesis in plants). Doing that will not only make it viable for "darker" areas to power themselves, but will also meet the needs of non-electrical energy.
You're right, the TW is a unit of power, but in the document I was referencing, the idea of power and energy is used kind of interchangeably. However, I don't think that detracts from my point.
In addition, you're right that "electricity is a very small part of our total energy demand". Therefore, my comment took that into account with the TW estimates. Besides the fact that nuclear energy probably wouldn't meet electrical energy needs, that energy cannot be easily be stored as fuels. This is why solar energy and its conversion methods (think photosynthesis) are very important to the future of energy. They can harness much more energy from the sun than we can produce. With new solar energy conversion methods, the solar energy can be effectively stored as fuels such as hydrogen.
Nuclear power isn't a fix because it just won't scale and causes pollution in other ways such as in radioactive waste. Energy researcher Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech and perhaps many others in the industry have already estimated that in order to even become close to the approx. 13 terawatt energy that the world is using every year, "producing 10 TW of power would require construction of 10,000 new nuclear power plants over the next 50 years, i.e., one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 years." Considering the fact that getting even one nuclear power plant built takes years, nuclear power does not look optimal.
However, about "1.2x105 TW of solar energy" hits the Earth's surface, and from "50 TW to optimistic estimates of 1500 TW" can be harvested each year. Therefore, solar energy is our best chance at meeting our energy needs.
But two of the biggest factors in holding this technology back is the increase in efficiency of solar cells, and solar energy conversion/storage (into a fuel).
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing. Let's see snakes on a chip...
This is Homeland Security. We will be paying a visit to you shortly.
Good points you have made. However, I'd like to defend my original post:
1. Even though nuclear waste can be contained somewhat safely, I think it would become a much bigger issue when hundreds of thousands of nuclear power plants start producing wastes that take thousands to millions of years to fully decay. Even though, the amount of "global warming" pollutants may be reduced, this is a trade off with the introduction of more radioactive waste.
2. My point there was that it takes many years to get by regulations to even start building a nuclear power plant. Even then, it'll take another few years for the plant to complete. It doesn't seem likely that the construction of 10,000 nuclear power plants will start construction within days of each other. Suppose you construct a batch every 5 years, then you need to start with 1000 new constructions every 5 years which still seems unfeasable.
3. Right, solar energy is our best chance. No other power source has been estimated to have the scalability to meet our energy needs in 50 years. Being our "best chance" does not mean that all associated hurdles have been solved. That's why I mentioned solar energy storage as fuels. Significant research is being conducted today on converting solar energy into a fuel (kind of like photosynthesis in plants). Doing that will not only make it viable for "darker" areas to power themselves, but will also meet the needs of non-electrical energy.
I'm basing my arguments off of this document: Scientific Challenges in Sustainable Energy Technology. If you're interested, it's a good read.
You're right, the TW is a unit of power, but in the document I was referencing, the idea of power and energy is used kind of interchangeably. However, I don't think that detracts from my point.
In addition, you're right that "electricity is a very small part of our total energy demand". Therefore, my comment took that into account with the TW estimates. Besides the fact that nuclear energy probably wouldn't meet electrical energy needs, that energy cannot be easily be stored as fuels. This is why solar energy and its conversion methods (think photosynthesis) are very important to the future of energy. They can harness much more energy from the sun than we can produce. With new solar energy conversion methods, the solar energy can be effectively stored as fuels such as hydrogen.
Nuclear power isn't a fix because it just won't scale and causes pollution in other ways such as in radioactive waste. Energy researcher Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech and perhaps many others in the industry have already estimated that in order to even become close to the approx. 13 terawatt energy that the world is using every year, "producing 10 TW of power would require construction of 10,000 new nuclear power plants over the next 50 years, i.e., one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 years." Considering the fact that getting even one nuclear power plant built takes years, nuclear power does not look optimal.
However, about "1.2x105 TW of solar energy" hits the Earth's surface, and from "50 TW to optimistic estimates of 1500 TW" can be harvested each year. Therefore, solar energy is our best chance at meeting our energy needs.
But two of the biggest factors in holding this technology back is the increase in efficiency of solar cells, and solar energy conversion/storage (into a fuel).