Wind, Solar Are A Distraction. Let’s Go Full Steam Ahead On Nuclear Power

First, though many countries pay lip service to the wonders of renewable energy sources, solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal remain a paltry 4.9% of global electricity production, according to the World Nuclear Association. (See figure.) The reason, Dr. Brook and his co-authors argue, is not because of societal intransigence but “the undeniably diffuse and intermittent nature of the energy sources themselves” as well as “technological immaturity.”

The “diffuse and intermittent nature of the energy sources” is particularly problematic because they relate to the laws of physics. For multiple reasons, it is difficult to provide sufficient electricity to a dense urban area using only renewable sources. Neither does the sun shine nor the wind blow all day long.

So wind and solar are too ‘diffuse’ and unreliable to base an energy economy on, second the energy model ‘alternate’ sources use doesn’t address the growing need and use of energy in developing countries.

Third, nuclear technology has advanced to such an extent that the three biggest safety concerns (namely, radioactive waste, weapons proliferation, and accidents) have been largely solved. Dr. Brook is so bullish on one type of nuclear technology, called Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs), that he claims it “has been proven capable of eventually providing not just a slice of the energy pie but the whole pie.

The IFR’s actually ‘eat’ radioactive waste that already exists, this converts a problem (the stored reactor waste around the world) to an asset.  Produce more energy from fuel that is already dug up, and stored in a known location.

About On the North River

Forty years toiled in the Tel-com industry, married for 36 years widowed at sixty-one. New girlfriend at sixty-five. Was a Tea Party supporter. Today a follower of the Last American President to be honestly elected, Donald J. Trump.
This entry was posted in All the News not fit to print., Tech. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to 4.5%

  1. Nemo says:

    Personally, I’m in favor of thorium. Thorium will never go critical, the reactors/generators can supposedly be made small enough to power a house efficiently and the spent fuel is almost non-toxic, although I wouldn’t bury it near my well ;^)). I “get” why CONgress shut down the IFR proto program. Can you say fossil fuel lobby?


Leave a Reply but please keep it Legal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s