Nuclear power is the only realistic way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sink or Swin Nuclear energy

Sink or Swin

Nuclear energy can reduce carbon dioxide in air. It is definatily true but it creat so much pollution in environment where we have nuclear power plant.

What about solar and wind

What about solar and wind power?

i think we better go 4 using

i think we better go 4 using other resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions...... less use of veichles n more use of hydrogen as a fuel.... nuclear energy will lead to d emissions of various radiowaves which will result in the genetic disorders of humans as well as other biotic communities..
its installation will conatminate water too.... so better to cheer other resources than using nuclear power

I believe there are many

I believe there are many alternatives to out current energy mix. First, GE makes a turbine that runs on Natural gas and is 60-70% efficient, with a possibility of extending to 100% You don't need a PhD to realize if you can utilize a more efficient method of electricity generation you will drastically reduce both your carbon emmission and total energy usage.
Some developing countries with oil wells, notably Nigeria and Russia burn large amounts of natural gas because they do not have the technology to collect it a use it. Imagine all of that available energy being wasted (and generating CO2) when we are currently suffering from a shortage of energy and a need for true growth industries. Then again, this would fly in the face of established industry that would definitely feel threatened by such a manuever.
Also, the only problem with burning coal currently is, the methane (natural gas) is not released from the surrounding material prior to burning. If the methane was released and captured prior to burning it would make coal a viable alternative.
Basically, the use of water as an energy transfer medium needs to be disposed of since the highest efficiency that can be attained is 40%.
THe problem with nuclear plants is there is always an inherent risk, and nuclear engineers no longer believe it can be made safe-enough.
The nuclear industry has also not addressed some of the problems that exist within the industry. For example, one of the key causes of TMI has not been effectively corrected by the industry in a meaningful fashion.

Was not the question about

Was not the question about "GLOBAL WARMING" ?

At the moment Nuclear power

At the moment Nuclear power is really the most realistic option, however I am looking forward to the application and use of Zero Point energy. Which if you don't know anything about, is 100% clean and easily produces 110 times the radiant energy at the center of the sun. And if we can get Tesla's ideas about wireless power working we wont even have to worry about power lines and substations and all the other infrastructure that would come with other power centers. Unfortunately this technology is still decades away from anything tangible but still.

Why don't we look past

Why don't we look past fission and concentrate on fusion? That way we sidestep the issue of supply of fissionable material and reduce the problem of waste. The latest round of laser-based tests at Livermore were very encouraging.

What we need is funding of basic research in the US. The type that came out of cold-war mentalities and space races. This time the goal should be fusion power.

Zero Point Energy would be

Zero Point Energy would be an incredible advancement for our fuel needs mfcmaddog.

John Wheeler and Richard Feynman of Princeton University calculated that a cup of zero point energy is enough to bring all the oceans of the world to boiling point. The idea of us harnessing this type of power as a fuel source is mind blowing, but I think that this type of advancement in fuel technology is still some ways off.

If the people on this board

If the people on this board cant keep on topic I have no hope for humanity.
Zero point energy, microwaves and water, fusion! GIVE ME A BREAK! Of those 3 only the last one is real and we have already spent BILLIONS with nothing like a break even reactor. By the way all the infrastructure built to hold the reactor becomes highly radioactive - for you clean fusion fans out there.
Here's the tough love answer. The world needs nuclear, wind, solar and low carbon content hydrocarbons. What it needs on top of that is about 50% less people. Anyone who doesnt address the population issue is peeing into the wind and we if we dont fix it we might just as well all drive Hummers.
BTW - we likely need an active sequestration program as well

I completely disagree. We

I completely disagree. We are about to start development of a Anaerobic Digestion system on four separate farms in the midwest that will produce over 5 trillion SCF of Renewable Natural Gas / year as well as just short of 200 MW of electricy / hour and that is just a drop in a very large bucket and is done completely off from manures, crop residues and food processing waste. We just need to get smart about what we are doing and kick the fossil based fuel habbit. There are better alternatives than nuclear.

If you don't believe me or better yet if you want to explore what you can do in your part of the world contact me through


WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW []

Copyright 1993-20010 Mark Winter [The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.