5 ms·

You don't know what you're talking about. At this point of history we NEED power and there are only two power sources with high enough availability and low eno

You don't know what you're talking about. At this point of history we NEED power and there are only two power sources with high enough availability and low enough cost. It's either thermo plants or nuclear plants. Everything else wont cut it. And turning off the lights won't do a shit to alleviate possible lack of energy if we stop using nuclear. Your PC ain't consuming that much power, we need power for industry. So if nuclear power was to be turned off immediately we'd have some shit on our hands. People without food, work,... Don't talk silly.

maigret 16y ago
I may have reacted too emotionally, but one of the point am I questioning is whether keeping old nuclear reactors is safe (I should probably have given more background on the German discussion). We may come to the conclusion that replacing them by new reactors could improve the overall safety. Of course that is going to cost money, and then we might find out that we are building us a debt that is not paying in the long term. The fact is that some countries use nuclear power a lot, some other almost not, and that nuclear power only produces a minor part of the world electricity and energy. Probably a part we could gain back by investing in efficiency.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  You are deceiving... Where did your get your information that nuclear power is "minor part" of electric energy production? See this table: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.html If you see this is practically a list of major industrialized countries. Two of the biggest (China and India) countries that will grow their energy needs tremendously are going to rely on nuclear power massively in the future. EDIT: Darn, I apologize :).
  - maigret 16y ago
    On the same site :D "The IAEA projections would give nuclear power a 13.5 to 14.6% share in electricity production in 2020, and 12.6 to 15.9% in 2030." http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html BTW there is currently around as much renewable energy than nuclear worldwide.
  - maigret 16y ago
    To your edit... No problem :) My karma is getting slammed on this discussion anyway :D To your precedent point about computers and home electricity consumption: most energy actually goes into heating/cooling, that's where passive improvements can do most - better isolation, passive air cooling etc. They are huge possible gains with that. And implementing these improvements makes local small companies thrive, rather than multinational energy companies.
    - JanezStupar 16y ago
      Be kind and provide some references. I'm pretty certain that heavy industry is helluva big consumer. Regarding home cooling and heating - I would expect that at least heating is primarily done via other means not electricity. Cooling may be a bigger problem, especially in the most developed countries. In any case I agree with you that we need to make our housing more energy efficient. And there are a lot of ways to do it, once we realize that concrete bricks might be fast and cheap to produce but beyond that not quite the best option.
      - maigret 16y ago
        I like to have heated discussions... Helps getting to the deepness of the topic :) I think I provided more link that most of the people contradicting me here. You are one the few providing links. Yes you're right: note than electricity is a subset of energy, so the part of nuclear in the total energy produced is even smaller. Think of transport. Electricity heating is strong where nuclear is strong, take France. So I think both are related, but your point is still valid.

maigret 16y ago

I may have reacted too emotionally, but one of the point am I questioning is whether keeping old nuclear reactors is safe (I should probably have given more background on the German discussion). We may come to the conclusion that replacing them by new reactors could improve the overall safety. Of course that is going to cost money, and then we might find out that we are building us a debt that is not paying in the long term. The fact is that some countries use nuclear power a lot, some other almost not, and that nuclear power only produces a minor part of the world electricity and energy. Probably a part we could gain back by investing in efficiency.

JanezStupar 16y ago
You are deceiving... Where did your get your information that nuclear power is "minor part" of electric energy production? See this table: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.html If you see this is practically a list of major industrialized countries. Two of the biggest (China and India) countries that will grow their energy needs tremendously are going to rely on nuclear power massively in the future. EDIT: Darn, I apologize :).
- maigret 16y ago
  On the same site :D "The IAEA projections would give nuclear power a 13.5 to 14.6% share in electricity production in 2020, and 12.6 to 15.9% in 2030." http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html BTW there is currently around as much renewable energy than nuclear worldwide.
- maigret 16y ago
  To your edit... No problem :) My karma is getting slammed on this discussion anyway :D To your precedent point about computers and home electricity consumption: most energy actually goes into heating/cooling, that's where passive improvements can do most - better isolation, passive air cooling etc. They are huge possible gains with that. And implementing these improvements makes local small companies thrive, rather than multinational energy companies.
  - JanezStupar 16y ago
    Be kind and provide some references. I'm pretty certain that heavy industry is helluva big consumer. Regarding home cooling and heating - I would expect that at least heating is primarily done via other means not electricity. Cooling may be a bigger problem, especially in the most developed countries. In any case I agree with you that we need to make our housing more energy efficient. And there are a lot of ways to do it, once we realize that concrete bricks might be fast and cheap to produce but beyond that not quite the best option.
    - maigret 16y ago
      I like to have heated discussions... Helps getting to the deepness of the topic :) I think I provided more link that most of the people contradicting me here. You are one the few providing links. Yes you're right: note than electricity is a subset of energy, so the part of nuclear in the total energy produced is even smaller. Think of transport. Electricity heating is strong where nuclear is strong, take France. So I think both are related, but your point is still valid.