Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming

interesting, not all the kids agree http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world/europe/31germany.html?_r=0

"While Germany continues to expand solar and wind power, the government's decision to phase out nuclear energy means it must now rely heavily on the dirtiest form of coal, lignite, to generate electricity. The result is that after two decades of progress, the country's CO2 emissions are rising."

"So what are the alternatives for keeping the lights on when renewables cannot do the job? So far, the answer has been lignite, one of the world's filthiest fossil fuels.

Lignite was the mainstay of power generation in communist East Germany, before Germany was reunified in 1990. Most of the old open-cast mines that once peppered the landscapes of states like Brandenburg, east of Berlin, subsequently shut. But now companies such as Vattenfall are opening new ones, along with new power stations to run on their output. Lignite burning is higher today than at any time since the 1990s. It generates 26 percent of the nation's electricity, more than solar and wind combined. No other nation burns so much. Lignite emits far more CO2 than other fossil fuels - 1,100 grams per kilowatt-hour, compared to between 150 and 430 grams for natural gas. It is the main reason why German CO2 emissions have started rising. "

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_road_to_green_energy_germany_detours_on_dirty_coal/2769/

As the US nuke stock approaches 40 years, the design life of that stock, there is a big hustle for 20 year license extensions. Behold, we bring unto you the nuclear age's ageless wonders. My metallurgist friends are revving up their lottery on what and when will be the first to start going.

If 50 aircraft fly 100 passengers each day for a sufficient number of days for the determination of crash probability and in response to popular demand our ingenious aircraft engineers devise a single plane that will carry all 5000 passengers in a single trip to the same terminals, and that aircraft is 5 times less likely to crash than one of the 50 passenger models, certainly the average passenger will wish to fly on the 5000 passenger aircraft. So, in response to individual passenger safety and preference, does the aircraft industry build that 5000 passenger aircraft? Is there relevance to nukes versus other electric power production systems?

Military exigencies (i. e., subs) drove nuclear power within a very limited universe of constraints, far less, as was realized by Rickover once his technology was firmly entering the marketplace, than those constraints for the ultimate nuclear proliferation scenario. To mix metaphors, when the genie turns on its master, will Atlas shrug?

I am perfectly happy with the current aircraft safety margin as its safety record is better than any other form of transportation, and I find the current on-board crowding conditions intolerable as they are.

"Ladies and gentlemen, please remember that only one person may use the forward lavatory at a time. No one is allowed to stand in the aisle by the cockpit door while waiting.

Passengers sitting in rows 10-250 may use the middle lavatory, while those in rows 251-500 may use the rear lavatory.

We are expecting a full flight today, so sit back and relax."

Didn't I see something more recently that Germany was finding out that their plan to eliminate nuclear wasn't working, and that they were buying some electric power from France which has lots of nuclear generating plants.

All of us need to learn that fast nuclear is vastly superior to the current thermal nuclear.

The whole decision to dump nuclear power was finally pushed over the edge when Japan had all the meltdowns from that Typhoon.

I guess they were worried one might find its way up the Rhine.

That left Germany with either buying nuclear power from the French, further entangling Germany with France. Or, they could buy coal power cheaper from the East.

I am pretty sure that the prospect of gas from Russia was not considered a good bet after the previous year where Russia pulled the gas carpet out from under Europe's feet.

I would rather have global warming (last Holocene era), than Global "cooling", IE, Little Ice Age and plague… The Glaciers that came down as far as Nebraska were a bit of a problem, and if agricultural improvement in the last 10 k years didn't occur, we would still be under the Glacial ice. The agricultural benefit, and the release of Methane during that period is the only thing that has allowed the temperature to stay warm enough for our civilization to rise to what it is… Scientists are working on that theorem at present, and there are good evidences that show that modern (last 10k years) agriculture techniques have accelerated methane production , increasing warming just enough to keep the glacial lines high enough to allow the warm period that we are currently enjoying. There are others that are warning that the potential for a retreat, to cooling, is around the corner. I keep reading , and trying to get all viewpoints...

Gotta love those cow farts

Even more you need to thank the guy that measured all of them.

Rich Hurd