Nucleus limited
 

A study has been released by the Oxford Research Group (about them: http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/ and then the menu "About us"). It puts demands for more nuclear powerplants to reduce global emissions back into perspective.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ottohandle.pdf

I found it described in a brief german introduction. I loosely summarize its conclusion:

energy demand will raise by around 50% in the next few years. Currently 429 nuclear powerplants in 31 countries produce 16% of the globally available electricity. 25 are under construction, 76 are planned, 162 are considered to be built. If nuclear energy really should add a realistic contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, then until 2075 at least 2000-2500 additonal nuclear powerplants would have to be built. that means that from now on three new additional powerplants must start to work - PER MONTH. this includes construction in countries that are considered to be instabile and a global security risk. Planned breeder-types of the category IV also will be run with weapon-suitable plutonium, type III reactors with MOX. This means that the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terror is seriously increasing, and that every country running such reactors must be considered to be a potential nuclear weapons-state. Currently there are 215 tons of plutonium in the civilian sector, and 250 tons in the military sector. In the West, these ammounts will grow by another 115 tons until 2015. and if until 2075 the majoirty of nuclear energy is produced by fast breeders, than we will have around 4000 tons of plutonium at that time. The blocking treaties on nuclear weapons and nuclear technology would be impossible to be controlled and enforced anymore.

How difficult that is we already see with the example of Iran and North Korea. And that is just the beginning.

How to explain that to your kids.

I'm trying to figure what you are trying to say here Skybird. Are you for the use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity? Or. Are you against nuclear energy because it can be used to produce weapons?

You posted the arcticle. I just don't know if I understand your position.

Actually it's quite simple - all you have to do is read it mate;)

OK mate. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I'm not getting it. Although you aren't the bird, what do you think his position is?

By 2075 every house in every sunny spot of the world will have solar panels for electricity and heating. Tall commercial buildings will kiss airspace good-bye and install wind generators in their rooftops. That leaves the industry out in the cold. Since by 2075 99.999999% of the global industry will be located in China that's going to be a very localized problem. The UN will head a project to create hubs of heavily-guarded nuclear power-plants near the industrial centers and all will be fine.

If by 2080 the global energy demand falls by 1000% because every house returned to candle lighting, well, at least you saved the planet.

Nuclear power is the answer, not as a means of generating power as firstly thought, but as the bringer of nuclear doomsday.

It's talking about the necessary growth in Nuclear reactors that some governments (mine included) are claiming is needed to combat global warming. and the repercussions of said growth

Personaly Nuclear power (and it's waste) makes me very uneasy too.

Scary as it is - I could see that coming true.

I have no problem with nuclear energy for the production of electricity.

There is, however a difference between the production of electricity and the production of nuclear weapons.

I've been trying to make out what the bird's point is in posting this arcticle. He hasn't articulated a stand. Is he waiting for others (a consenous) to to have an opinion. Perhaps he's just trolling?

If you wanted me to guess, I'd say he has no problem with nuclear energy either but with the proliferation of the material that can be used as a weapon.

The theory of general relativity should be a good start. :smug: :arrgh!: :rotfl:

Do you get it? Is it lost on you? Why does he need to express a radical opinion just to post anything? Is this board so insane that when you can't decide if he's your friend or your enemy you get confused like a computer in a feedback loop?

Wow, where did that come from P. I was just asking a question as to where the bird standed on his own post. Nothing radical required.

Lookout everybody


http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...PFO4G2ISGM.jpg

:shifty:

Is it me of is WG getting worse?

Transparent