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...
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Sen. Barack Obama (D) was asked by host Tim Russert to discuss his position on Nuclear Energy.
Comments
Wins prize for most nonsensical answer yet.
Actually it's a very good answer for nuclear power, given the constituency that Obama is currently courting. If he is elected, he can "discover" the already-running design licensing process (approving standard designs, rather than designing each plant). He can "discover" that nuclear power has a safety record second to none. And he can "discover" that Yucca Mountain is a reasonable solution to waster, especially if it has its license at that point. All of which could allow him to push forward with nuclear power expansion.
Yes, nuclear in the US has had a nasty cost control problem from the 70s to the 90s and the long term destiny of spent fuel is the other big issue, still wide open and in need for some serious decision making.
That Obama can correctly identify those issues and doesn't descent in incoherents about radioactive leaks means we're in a much better shape than with any past presidential candidate in the last 25 years, Republican or Democrat. Admittedly, the bar is pretty darn low...
The fact that Excelon Corp. is one of his biggest corporate donors may have something to do with it :>
I think this is the wrong place for a general political discussion.
I liked McCain, that guy whose conscious opposed Bush's tax cut, who argued against torture as a wrong policy on ethical and factual grounds - torture produces bad intelligence. I don't want to see 3rd Bush term.
Recent nuclear revival is caused by real needs for more power in the times when fossil fuel prices soar. No administration can stop that. I am certainly suspicious of Clinton's intentions, but even she'll have to realize that even with grand solar plan we'd need more nuclear. Much more indeed.
Therefore I think the best candidate is Obama, he is of the least antinuclear among democrats, and I agree with Joffan that 'change is going to come' ;-)
-t- (not the other anonymouses)
Let's stick to nuclear power or this board will become a mess...
"The thing about being in the middle of the road is that you wind up getting hit from both sides."