Bonzo, I take the somewhat unpopular view that we should indeed extend the lives of our current batch of nuclear power stations *as part of a strategy to switch to a sustainable model*. However, the current debate is not centered on that issue at all. The question being put before the government and people is whether or not to expand nuclear power generation in order to take up the slack from depleting fossil fuel reserves. To be pro-nuclear in the current climate is to take that line, and that's where I saw you as coming from. If like me, you're just talking about an extension to the lifespan of current reactors (incidentally, they can't be extended much beyond a handful of years) then we're not really at cross-purposes.
However, you do appear to be wrong on some of the details.
>
> 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 of
> 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.
>
That's completely incorrect. The Australian Government report which contains the data can be read here:
http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/annual_report_9900/nuc_ind_current_issues.html
Direct from the horses mouth. The key lines, in this context, are:
>
> [a]t current rates of consumption, existing and
> estimated uranium reserves recoverable ... are
> sufficient for only about 50-60 years. Growth in
> the nuclear industry will reduce this period.
>
That's pretty damn specific.
You are correct when you point out that there's a "super-abundance" of low grade uranium. However the extraction / refinement of this is a massively energy-intensive operation. It brings nuclear power well within the sort of energy-efficiencies achieved by renewables. So using "uranium from seawater" or "low-grade uranium" is almost willful pollution. You gain precisely nothing over and above wind power except for a bunch of waste problems.
Also, I'm incredibly sceptical of any "solution" to our energy supply problems that radically increases energy demand (as the extraction of uranium from 'trace' sources would do).
With regards to your analysis of windpower based upon population density, I'm rather confused. There is precisely no correlation between population density and energy demand (some of the most densely populated areas of the world also have the lowest energy demand, and vice versa). And there's also no correlation between population density and the availability of renewable energy sources.
After Sweden, the European nation with the most renewable energy is Austria (25.4% supplied from renewables... though they do classify "hydro" as renewable which is a whole other discussion). Their population density is just under 100 ppkm2. So your calculation:
>
> 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.
>
So if you use Austrian numbers instead of Swedish (both of whom have roughly 25.4% renewable energy), it would mean "GB would have to be 2.4 (two point four!) times larger than it currently is." I hope this demonstrates the meaninglessness of caculating energy potential based upon population density.
It's like when you talk of
>
> those densely inhabited areas where there's no place for
> a windmill
>
Areas like East London perhaps? All of the power required for the Ford Motor Plant in Dagenham is provided by a windfarm located on site. The 85-metre high turbines power car production. I'm well aware of the irony, but clearly the principle works; it's just a case of using them to power something useful instead.
>
> 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.)
>
It's important to note that windfarms are not a global solution; they're a local one. But you do them an injustice when you talk of them as "not viable" or "warming up a certain percentage of 9 million Swedes". Offshore windfarms (on the Atlantic coast of Europe) could meet the electricity needs of all Europe, not just a handful of Swedes.
[That's *electricity* only. The other aspects of fossil fuels are a whole other - and much much worse - problem]
|
