|
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
In order to replace oil with nuclear, we'd need to build something like 10,000 nuclear reactors (Breeder reactors). At a cost of $3-5 billion per reactor, that would cost at least $30,000,000,000,000 or $30 trillion. And that doesn't even compensate for rising energy requirements that will continue to rise as 10,000 nuclear reactors were built, which would take about 25 years. |
Interesting, and yet people think we can replace our energy needs with solar and wind power?
BTW that link is dead, perhaps you can site the source you got it from since it wasn't your original source?
Edit: Hehe googling it did find it sited in some 'interesting' hits. I liked this ones solutions....
Key changes needed
· Urgent need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, especially
oil, through:
o lifestyle change - eg greater use of public transport,
using smaller cars, car-sharing, holidaying closer to home
o energy efficiency technologies - eg more fuel-efficient
vehicles, better home insulation
o renewable energy technologies - wind, solar, biomass,
water (hydro, wave, tidal), geothermal
o government policies and measures to support these
changes, eg eco-taxes, carbon trading, regulation, R&D
support
o strengthening of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, especially binding targets on the biggest
emitters (the largest being the USA) based on
"Contraction and Convergence" principles (Ustwo note, its now China, expect the left to ignore)
· Urgent need to stem the global flow of weapons, especially
small arms in poorer countries whose environmental resources
are under stress and conflict may occur
o need strengthening of UN programme of action on
eradicating illegal small arms
o need countries to agree a UN arms trade treaty
o USA, which has highest levels of small arms in private
hands and is world's largest arms exporter, is resisting
these efforts
· Urgent need to support post-conflict reconstruction and
conflict prevention activities
o Only receives a small amount of funding
· In 2005, the world spent over $1.1 trillion
($1,100,000,000,000) on its military forces - continuing a
rising trend. Diverting at least some of this spending could
help achieve the aims above, reducing the likelihood of
conflict.
· Reducing dependence on military forces as a way of dealing
with international problems will also help reduce their carbon
emissions!
· The power of corporations, especially military corporations,
with their ability to lobby for favourable policies needs to be
curbed.
http://www.frosinone.org/scuola/diri...%20Warming.pdf
Ah hippies...
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host
Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Last edited by Ustwo; 04-15-2008 at 12:47 PM..
|