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
There once was a president named Bush
Who hurried to war in a rush
His latest decision
Is safe nuclear fission
He’s talking right out of his tush!
There once was a fool who said oil
Has definitely gone off of the boil
We must rather go "newkular"
For a safe and clean future
And poison the air, water and soil.
There once was a moron from Maine
Who made a preposterous claim,
He said nuclear fission
Was his number one mission
To keep us safe, healthy and sane.
There was a goofball named Gunter,
Who was simply a one-note wonder.
He hates everything nuke,
Which proves he's a kook.
In this we can't be any blunter!
Gunter says nukes are bad.
But in their place he has nothing to add.
Wind and solar miss the mark.
Gunter freezes in the dark.
But perhaps that isn't so bad!!
So let's raise a dirge for old Paul,
He really hasn't a clue at all.
Nukes will clean up the air,
For the environment we'll care.
With clean energy at low cost for all!!!
(See, others can use exclamation points too.)