Quote:
Originally Posted by xort
Considering his credentials as posted by Cam, your statement speaks more about you than him.
|
...meaning of course that I refuse to attempt analysis beyond my own field of expertise, right?
The actual engineering of nuclear plants has everything to do with analysis on how much carbon dioxide they emit.
Cam,
Hard data on nuclear plant construction is difficult to do back of the envelope, especially given that the 100th plant is far less expensive to construct than the 1st, and so on. Nuclear has the distinction of being the only power source which is required to factor in all aspects of environmental cost (in construction, operation, and decommissioning) making it appear more expensive (relative to others) than it actually is. An order of magnitude estimate would be 1 billion dollars each. Zero emissions. Consider that 300 (not a thousand) today would be capacity enough to completely replace coal and natural gas (in the US in 2007). More hundreds, even thousands would indeed be needed globally. However, consider that society's energy needs will likely continue to expand exponentially in the near future. Only two existing technologies can meet those expanding needs: coal and nuclear.
I don't care about politics. I find it as uninteresting as the details of the plumbing in my house.
Finally, when you are looking at an analysis of scientific data, consider the source. Don't let some civil engineer try and tell you something about ocean currents, or some economist tell you something about ice cores. The ONLY scientific data and analysis that matters is that which is in reviewed journals. If the claim isn't backed up by published data in a climate science journal, it's not worth even looking at, if you yourself are not an expert.
And about vegan diets and whatnot, again it's a law of diminishing returns. Yes, farming produces methane. Coal and natural gas produce much more. Let's worry about the BIG things, and not worry too much about the smaller sources. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and it is inevitable. The rate is what we have reasonable control over.
I'm writing as a taxpayer, not an expert on climate science.