Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Teasing out the oversimplification

Conservation is important, but it doesn't answer the mail
Larry J — (archived)

The best we're likely to achieve even with aggressive conservation measures is to slow the rate of growth in energy consumption. That's important because slowing the rate of growth by even 1% can pay huge dividends over time. However, unless you can actually reduce energy consumption instead of just slowing the growth rate, we're going to need new sources of energy. Alternative energy sources like wind power can provide some, in some places at some times, but it's a viable solution everywhere. Nuclear energy provides first tier power that's available all of the time, while most alternative means are best at supplying supplemental power to help in peak periods.

Every large conventional fossil fueled powerplant spews many tons of pollutants per day. Nuclear power is much cleaner. The amount of waste produced by a nuclear powerplant is several orders of magnitude (I'd estimate 5 or 6) less than by conventional powerplants. While the waste is a serious issue, it can be handled.

We do need to address energy on several fronts. We do need to conserve. We do need alternative sources where practical. And, we need to produce more energy. Nuclear is one viable means and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (63 posts)