At work.
Jehanne?
You realize you're possibly engaging in a sort of fallacy, right?
Greenhouse emissions Vs nuke power are complicated economic, social and political issues.
If your feelings were to be followed there would be NO nuclear power generation EVER/AT ALL.
Thus, since the economic investment in renewables that is barely in (Or out of) its infancy it will take hundreds if not possibly thousands of years to catch up to and thence surpass the already five or so centuries humanity has been industrialy burning things.
The energy density of the power of the atom simply dwarfs that of fossil or renewable. For evey kilowatt of power generated by nuclear per tonn. How much investment in renewables is potentially needed to match it?
Some figures have already been posted that show nuclear's 'Bounce per ounce' compared to fossil fuels.
Cheers.
Jehanne?
You realize you're possibly engaging in a sort of fallacy, right?
Greenhouse emissions Vs nuke power are complicated economic, social and political issues.
If your feelings were to be followed there would be NO nuclear power generation EVER/AT ALL.
Thus, since the economic investment in renewables that is barely in (Or out of) its infancy it will take hundreds if not possibly thousands of years to catch up to and thence surpass the already five or so centuries humanity has been industrialy burning things.
The energy density of the power of the atom simply dwarfs that of fossil or renewable. For evey kilowatt of power generated by nuclear per tonn. How much investment in renewables is potentially needed to match it?
Some figures have already been posted that show nuclear's 'Bounce per ounce' compared to fossil fuels.
Cheers.
