You make several points Grufty One. Like the fact that we will simply *have* to cut down our exuberant energy consumption. What you say is true, it's not a matter of choice, but of "will simply have to".
Other good point is the long term effects of nuclear waste. True, even for the effects of Tchernobyl, which are minimized by a number of parties pointing at the thriving wildlife in the zone, it is still premature to measure the consequences, as Hiroshima-consequences scientists have pointed out. Still the limited size of the waste will keep its effects smaller than the vast global er... yes, why not call it evolutionary armageddon, that is the consequence of fossile fule consumption. Anyway, enough of comparing with these evildoers...
Now, I am no expert and only pick up what comes to me over the net & such, but, despite the fact that I've read about the predictions of 50 years worth op uranium, I've also read that these predictions are somewhat biased in that it would be the case if the whole world switched to nuclear. I've also heard that there is a "super-abundance" of low-grade uranium (granite, thorium), which still can supply 5x more energy than the same mass of coal.
Still, you've got a good point also with the industry needed to get to these fuels. I have to admit I hadn't thought about that. Still, what do you think they make these windmills with? True, it's not such heavy industry.
Now you take Sweden (and Norway). Like Lou Reed said in Blue In The Face, "everything works in Sweden". But may I point out that Sweden has a population density of 19 ppkm2 (Norway 13), while GB has 240 ppkm2, and my own flatlands of mediocricy, Belgium, 330! What this means is that, if you compare the Sweden/Norway situation with Britain, it would mean that in order to have as much room as S/N to put up windfarms (or get other renewable energy), GB would have to be 3,435,000 km2. As you know, currently it's only 242,430 km2. So, in order to have as much room for this alternative energy form as them, GB would have to be 14 (fourteen!) times larger than it currently is. Of course, Sweden doesn't *have* to fill up it's entire country with windfarms, but it's just that high population density areas could really be fucked here. Of course you'll argue that we can still fill up the entirety of Siberia with windmills.
But still I think that in no way these windfarms (which are the issue here, not renewables per se), just because they can warm up a certain percentage of 9 million Swedes, will in the long run provide an amount of energy which can cover the needs of the world's expanding population. (Now, if it were up to me, people would be limited to just 2 kids max, but a lot of people just won't take that.)
Don't misunderstand me here, I do not advocate nuclear per se. I also don't say we should "switch" to nuclear. I'm just saying that currently advocating the stepping out of nuclear, at this point in time, is just unrealistic and dangerous for the planet's ecology. And indeed, I think in some cases it might be easier to build an additional plant to substitute a heap of fossile-fuel consuming industries, rather than wait for the windmills to provide it. This however does not mean that one should abandon renewable energy. I mean, it's good that 40% of Sweden's energy is renewable. But remember, that's *needed* energy, and how much energy is 40% of 9 million industrialised people's worth on a world scale? And Sweden has also 40% oil and 20% nuclear.
Like I said in the first post, renewable *is* the only long term future we have, together with cutting down consumption. But from the (now ultra-) short term ecological needs point of view, I'd say it's ten past twelve, so wrap up what fossile fuels you can and replace them with nukes in order to currently save the planet from meltdown, especially in those densely inhabited areas where there's no place for a windmill, and then start working out ways to *keep* it that way. We've ruined it, there's simply no time left, so time for plan B so to speak.
|
