Energy supply is more important than climate change

Nobody's Fuel emphasizes how important energy is to human welfare. With 85% of world energy currently supplied by fossil fuels, it is clear that a replacement must both mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and secure a stable and affordable fuel supply.

This film explains that: * tar sands cannot cure "peak oil" * world energy consumption could triple by 2100 * history and technical limitations show renewable energy cannot ever provide more than 10% of world energy * energy efficiency and conservation marginally reduce carbon dioxide emissions * tree planting is not reliable for storing carbon dioxide permanently * the hydrogen economy is currently impractical

Nobody's Fuel is not a doomsday scenario. This film recommends the widespread adoption of nuclear fission energy. Using modern fast breeder reactors, nuclear fuel is the only energy that is large enough to replace fossil fuels and mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• energy
• renewable
• alternative
• hot
• nuclear
• electricity
• environment
• inconvenient
• carbon
• kyoto

[crono985]

nuclear might have to be a temporary fix its not ideal but its much better than fossil fuel and might stave of climate change long enough for us to perfect nuclear fission which has no waste or pollutants nuclear is the lesser of 2 evils and i would much rather have it then burning coal

[JonThm]

Prof Zimmerman told me about Ti helixes improving heat flow: He was wrong, it does nuclear fusion on molecular hydrogen - like steam flowing up the helix.

[georgH]

The world is overpopulated.

[Reelalitybytes]

I hate it when the nuke industry attacks the renewable industry. They should argue on their own merits, and not play politics.

[jackson32]

Using fast breeder reactors and a method called nuclear reprocessing nuclear reactors can produce at least 30 times more energy per unit of fuel than current reactors, and the fuel can last millions of years. Also this method uses up much more of the radioactivity, so much so that the spent fuel will lose 98 percent of it's radioactivity in 600 years when it will have the same radioactivity as many surrounding rocks.

Google THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION for an excellent online book

[hopit]

Nuclear power is non-renewable. Also we are facing the global depletion of water, forests, minerals, fisheries, soil, etc. An indicator of sustainability is how much we consume compared to the earth's capacity to regenerate. Humans are currently consuming 120-130% of the earth's regenerative capacity. To allow for bio diversity a reasonable target might be 20%. A high-energy economy is what enables us to consume to so much.

[hopit]

At every point in time we've had the ability to live sustainibly. The solution is to consume less than the regenerative capacity of the earth. To focus on the supply side rather than conservation, is faulty ecological economics - like someone in serious debt, despite the fact that they have a reasonable income. Then this person (perhaps on the faulty logic that any reduction in their spending would doom them to unhappiness) suggests that the best solution is to make more money.

[greyflcn]

We don't need Nuclear.

For the same ammount of digging, 6 mile deep Geothermal with "Hot Dry Rock" technology can provide thousands of times more energy than the world demands.

Raser Technologies recently has developed an electromagnet drilling motor with 4x more torque than the best physical magnet motors.

[carbonfreefuel]

What the BLEEP do you know? What goes around comes around. Cancer sucks! Enjoy your kemo solution. I'll stick with unlimited, safe solar fussion and water splitting aka Solar/Hydrogen fuel. No foolin' No pollution. Plant a tree suck some CO2 and chill.

[anonym0u5]

huh, what a propaganda piece.

The Co2 and energy return figures are of course not that rosy.

Still, we need uranium fission, but it's only ONE solution and cannot cover all bases.