Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Arctic Methane - This Does Not Sound Good... [View all]wtmusic
(39,166 posts)"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?
Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable.
I hold no special brief for nuclear power. If there were another way of providing our energy needs without destroying the Earth, I would support it. I am not, I must admit, happy about the dangers of nuclear radiation. I know that, in the hands of engineers at, say, Sizewell, nuclear power is extremely safe, but I can think of many places that would not inspire me with the same confidence. There is always the fallibility of human nature, and the danger that politics will domineer engineering prudence, although the same could be said of all modern technology. Strict controls and eternal vigilance are therefore the price we must pay for its benefits."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2
Without nuclear, we are screwed. But you knew that.