09-12-2012
In the last post we
saw why to be pro nuclear power. For those who didn’t follow the
blog we saw that nuclear can provide a constant and scalable source
of electricity, without consuming as much footprint in terms of land
occupied as wind and solar power, and could help as a disarmament
tool.
But are we sure? Is
it true? Let see what doctor Mark Z. Jacobson, professor
of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and
director of the Atmosphere and Energy Program, stated in his talk at
TED.
For what concern
nuclear weapons, Dr. Jacobson affirms that there is some sort of link
between nuclear power development and disarmament of nuclear weapons.
But that is true just for America and for Russia. But is also true
that India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are secretly developing
nuclear weapons by enriching uranium in nuclear energy facilities.
And what about
footprints? Many people mix up the footprint with spacing. The
spacing between wind turbines can be used for multiple purposes such
as agriculture or rangeland. Not to consider that many of that are in
the middle of the ocean that is not even land. Dr Jacobson show how
to power the entire US vehicle fleet, 3 square kilometers are enough.
And nuclear? What is occupied by a nuclear plant cannot be used else
way, not to consider that you have to have a 17 square miles buffer
zone and the uranium mine to care about.
The most relevant
critic is that renewables cannot provide a stable and constant supply
of electricity. That is true. But fortunately science have improved
more than one form of renewable energy. And the answer to a constant
supply rely here, mixing together those form of energy. You can
combine solar, wind and hydro to keep a constant supply so that any
time, in any weather condition there is at least one source of energy
working.
I will conclude this
post quoting Dr. Jacobson: “we can guarantee a clean, blue sky
[with renewable] or an uncertain future with nuclear power”.
Hi there, interesting post, well done.
RispondiEliminaA few language points - be careful of tenses in the first few sentences (remember past simple for finished past time, present perfect linking past to present), and also minor mistakes which the spell checker might not have seen (my corrections are in CAPITALS or if you need to remove something i put it in brackets):
Today I want to write a post(s) about the International Atomic Energy Agency, that (if)IS the watchdog of the United Nations in everything that concerns nuclear issues.
The IAEA (has been)WAS created in 1957 by US President Dwight D Eisenhower to promote the development of technology along peaceful lines. SINCE (After) the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the IAEA HAS had a key role in the coalition ...
Israel , which has nuclear weapons, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is a not subject of the IAEA inspections or sanctions.
...
Israel , which has nuclear weapons, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is (a) not subject TO (of the) IAEA inspections or sanctions.
Sorry but I find this a little bit absurd: "IAEA promotes the peaceful use of the atomic energy". How can you say you use a weapon peacefully?You cannot use weapons of any kind (but in this case the nuclear ones) peacefully. Either you use them, either you're not. Just the idea that you own a gun is a threat to others. Is useful to have such an institution to control and keep track of countries possessing nuclear weapons but I think it does nothing else but perpetuate arming and not a restraining of them. Imagine two countries possessing nuclear weapons: as more information hold on each others arsenal,the more will motivate them to overcome their opponent. I strongly believe that the most important thing is to promote actions to ban them rather than their inventory.
RispondiElimina