So I've been reading this article. Greenpeace are protesting the nuclear power and are somewhat enraged that they're not beaten up. It shows clearly that they're masochistic (they always seem to look forward to some beatings). Also they are completely and utterly nuts.
You see, they get 75% of their electricity from nuclear power in France. So what's the alternative they offer? Why, none of course! So let's think for them.
First of all there's renewable sources. Let's take a look...
Solar power: expensive, low effectiveness, need for some type of energy storage as there's that phenomenon called 'night' that Greenpeace is blissfully unaware of and some thing they call 'fog'. Now explain to that guy in intensive care why he won't have all that equipment keeping him alive working at night... But when you need to power some small device that is a good solution sometimes. When you need to power your high-speed train in the evening... well, you're out of luck. If you live somewhere in the Arctic... you're screwed royallly as there's that 'Arctic night' stuff. Oh, and it takes up lots of land.
Wind power: same storage problems when you have no wind: when the wind is too strond your wind farm may just disintegrate. Also there's a nice bonus: looks like there's a certain disruption of weather patterns by the wind farms, as well as plenty of dead birds (bird+propeller=SPLAT!!!) and low-frequency noise that is really bad for marine life. Also, you need lots of space for it as well (so they build them offshore).
Biofuels: all thar stuff with ethanol seems to be a dead-end for now. If we have some break-through with the methods of production (like GM algae or something) it may turn out OK. If we at the same time perfect the fuel cell technology we may have a winner here. Also producing methane from all that kitchen garbage looks like a good idea (and you get some organic fertilizer out of it as well!).
Hydrogen: low density and storage problems. Good probability of explosions when mixed with the air. Oh, and you need electricity to produce it. Overall, ain't viable now.
Hydro power: well... if you are willing to turn that farmland into the bottom of reservoir... oh, you're from some country where there are draught after draught after drauht after.. sorry, pal, you're screwed. To put it simply, ain't always viable.
Geothermal: too immature. Also far as I know, you can't just stick it anywhere you want.
To summarize it: nothing that can be immediately used as a solution, but some niche solutions are good already and some techs are really worth exploring furthe (like using methanol or ethanol with fuel cells to power electric vehicles).
Second, we have prowen old tech like oil-, gas- or coal-burnin power stations. Now can you say 'global warming'?.. You can try to use renewable wood in these but again it's too ineffective.
And the third way is... right, going nuclear. And not peeing our pants at the word. We do know the reactors designed in 1970s may be not so safe, but what if we try using our heads for designing a safer reactor? If our ancestors were that easily scared, we won't even be using fire or tools.
So to sum it up: We as a species need to be a bit more brave. Now when we think sometig can burn us (or just make us a bit uncomfortable) we tend to ban it (like those parents who called for helium to be banned affter their oh-so-clever 13 yr old daughter was not bright enough to know that you need oxygen to breathe and suffocated). Maybe we should just use those brains in our heads to think before doing something instead of looking for someone to blame after we screw up?..
No comments:
Post a Comment