news
archives
|
energy archives 1 2 3 |
|
|
lake
bottom methane
This is the second report I have seen recently on methane in shallow waters. The previous report referred to 10 trillion tonnes of methane in shallow coastal seas around the of the world. (For scale: known pumpable oil reserves are only 1 trillion barrels. 7.2 barrels is approximately metric ton, it varies with oil density) Related material the web address for this article is |
08.03.2003 Related material |
|
|||||
an
interesting report on the japanese nuclear power industrya case
study Please attend to the mis-statements and lack of
full development in the linked article, despite that it is much better
than most media articles on this subject.
This is complete nonsense, a nonsense that is continually
being repeated. It is a confusion of the power consumed by a country,
with the percentage of electricity consumed that is generated by nuclear
power. Nuclear power, in fact, provides only about 10% of the energy inputs
to the Japanese economy. That is, 30% of the electricity supplied
is generated by nuclear power. Because of the inefficiency of power generation,
this ends up providing only about 4% of the original Japanese energy input
to the end-user
who switches on a light.
Tales of lax management of nuclear power are common around the world, but much of it because of media hype of all things nuclear. The nuclear industry has an excellent safety record. Of course, that should be no reason for complacency.
Nor does much of the world, with the increasing depletion and pressures upon oil reserves.
Good to see the Japanese government taking its duties seriously. I look forward to similar courage from Western leaders.
Clearly, the Greenpeace spokesperson does not know
what they are talking about. Nor is there yet any form of energy that is entirely clean, but nuclear energy comes a whole lot closer to that than does fossil fuel energy, which currently supplies the great bulk of power in advanced countries. To call people who mouth such tosh environmentalists, gives the word a bad name.
As nuclear power becomes increasingly important in the absence of fundamental technological advance, it is vital that public education is improved and that the field is not left to uneducated cranks, or commercial interests, with political axes to grind. Related material the web address for this article is |
07.03.2003 Related material |
||||||
china prepares for increasing pressure on oil supplies, builds nuclear power capacity
China derives 1.9 GW equivalent electricity from nuclear power. the web address for this article is |
04.03.2003 | ||||||
even exposure to nuclear bomb testing appears to show minimal added risks
Large sample, long period. This report is short, clear and precise. Related material the web address for this article is |
27.02.2003 Related material |
||||||
sloppy
nuclear safety facilities in the usa
Related material the web address for this article is |
15.02.2003 Related material |
||||||
is
kyoto a con game? was bush correct to refuse kyoto? Why did US President Bush cancel Kyoto? Was he being more honest than European politicians? My survey of the current oil situation has led me to conclude that there is only one serious, reasonably safe, energy future currently in sightthat future is nuclear power. Germany is currently planning to run down its nuclear generating industry, which currently produces approximately 33% of German electricity. Germany is currently pledged to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 24 million tons a year. Taking their nuclear generating power offline and replacing it with fossil driven alternatives is estimated to add approximately 100 million tons of CO2 per year. Cheap oil is a short-term bonanza. Gas is even shorter term as far as I can assess. Britain has being doing well recently because of a switch to gas generation. Gas is cleaner then oil, and oil is also cleaner than coal. The current Kyoto objectives are for 2020. Naturally, that is when most of the current lot of politicians will no longer be answerable. Is Kyoto a con job? The only way I can see a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel filth is to expand nuclear power considerably. The only serious response to the future oil shortages, now confidently being predicted (and with which I can find little serious fault), is enormous expansion of nuclear power. For my briefing document on fossil fuel difficulties, start here. For sustainability and nuclear power, see Sustainable
Energy
Why are governments not educating the populations to understand the problems
with fossil fuels? Exactly what was the alleged reason for Bush rejecting Kyoto? Related material the web address for this article is |
08.02.2003 Related material |
||||||
an
important new item on radiation risk This report requires extremely
careful reading. You will see from the remarks following the excerpt that
I do not trust this reportyet!
the web address for this article is |
31.01.2003 | ||||||
a new type of nuclear reactor?
Can this be serious? the web address for this article is |
31.01.2003 | ||||||
how difficult is transferring to a hydrogen economy? A recommended, fairly long article. Lead thanks to c.j. Related material the web address for this article is |
22.01.2003 | ||||||
tidal
power back under discussion in the uk [Note: In the article, the comments on the price of capital are ill-informed. The forward money effects on the numbers will be lower only because of lower recent inflation levels (January, 2003). The real costs of any capital will remain similar. However, steady improvements in technology, including in the efficiency of the unit being built, may well lower real costs of production relative to 15 years ago.] Diversification of low-impact power supplies is vital to reducing world-wide political tensions and to reducing the externalised pollution costs generated during human power usage. Externalised costs refers to obliging others to pay for the damaging or deleterious results of ones own less-than-responsible activities. Such costs need not be direct money costs, but includes other costs to the structure of society, including those to health and environment. It is interesting to see that, increasingly, reports such as that linked above are being presented as offering a means to lowering greenhouse gases, when the most pressing problems are oil replacement, followed by relieving ground-level pollution. I wonder whether this type of presentation is becoming government code, used in order not to scare the horses. Of course, reducing large-scale human environmental impact remains a sane action.
In my view, there is plenty of available energy. Period. The prime problems are (you will appreciate my distinction in context below)
Storage: With much alternative energy, I regard storage as the prime difficulty. (While I include nuclear energy in alternative energy production, storage is not a pressing concern with nuclear energy.)
Transportability differs from storage. The difference appears when providing power for mobile consumptioncars, trains, aeroplanes, ships. For instance, cars, ships and aeroplanes must take a fuel store with them. Electrically-powered transport, such as trains and trams, do not have such mobile storage problems, but instead require a very capital-intensive infrastructure. Of course, cars etc. need an infrastructure of available refuelling points. I have pretty well concluded that the objections to nuclear energy are hysterical and uninformed. Further, I am slowly becoming highly suspicious that the oil industry, and their governmental puppets, are attempting to stop the development of nuclear and other alternative energies. Any such policy would be disastrous for the planet, and your own future. Currently, we have a window of opportunity while large oil reserves remain; but this window is closing inexorably and relatively rapidly. Related material
the web address for this article is |
16.01.2003 Related material |
||||||
is nuclear power really really dangerous? Part 2 Transferred to briefing documents the web address for this article is |
13.01.2003 |
email email_abelard [at] abelard.org © abelard, 2002, 27 december the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/news/energy2.htm vaiable words
|