Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
Comments
Calidcott the Energy Killer...
Kinda has a ring to it.
I wonder if we should have an Energy Killer awards "the NegaWatties". Awarded for outstanding achievement in the field of putting us all back in mud huts.
Hes so right that when the prices of energy are driven up by these alleged environmental groups, its the people at the bottom who get hurt. Then thrown a few crumbs. Eg.. how many poor people dream of one day having subsidized bus passes versus owning and driving around their own car?
--aa2