[Lewis Thomson (OP)]

David would like some advice on this topic of discussion.

"Is Nuclear Power the only source of energy in which to reduce or stop global warming and reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions??? Personally, I do not think we have much choice because no other source (including wind, solar and other alternative cleaner energy resources) comes nowhere near the demand and also have the capability to expand."

Leave your thoughts in the comments below....

[alancalverd]

Wind and solar power are entirely feasible once we have agreed on means of storing and distributing the energy, and reduced the human population to a  level  that can be sustained at an acceptable standard of living (about one tenth of the current numbers).

Given that the time it takes to build a civil nuclear power station increases every year, it is unlikely that nukes will ever meet the demand of a zero-carbon economy if we do not control the population.

[chiralSPO]

as alancalverd said, nuclear power plants are expensive and time/labor intensive to build (there is also a very significant carbon footprint to build them in the first place!)

Wind and solar are quite abundant compared to humanity's energy demands: globally we average about 18 terawatts of energy usage, while global sunlight is about 17,000 terawatts (and that includes the fact that half of the world is in darkness at any given time, and the poles don't get as much as the equator). So we would only need to use 0.01% of the incoming solar energy to meet 100% of our energy demands.

Of course, capturing, storing, and distributing the solar and wind energy is not free either, but nuclear has effectively all the same problems, plus you need to deal with the radioactive fuel and waste. (Whereas solar and wind energy are too variable to meet our energy demands perfectly, nuclear power is typically too constant, and cannot be ramped up and down to match our daily energy demand cycles, so it also requires energy storage!)

Geothermal energy is another important part of the puzzle.

Finally, as alancalverd alluded to: we also just need to reduce our demands. ≈ 18×10¹³ W for ≈8×10⁹ people means on average each person is using more than 20 kW all day every day! We should be able to meet our needs and wants much more efficiently, and we probably should have many fewer people needing and wanting.

[evan_au]

Economics are against nuclear power.
- The cost per Joule of solar and wind power is well below the price from nuclear.
- Even when you add the price of storage to solar and wind,it is still much cheaper than nuclear

The price trends are against nuclear:
- The price of solar and wind capacity is declining rapidly
- The price of nuclear capacity is increasing steadily
- The price of batteries is declining steadily (but this probably benefits all technologies)

Agility is against nuclear:
- The lead time to install new solar or wind capacity is relatively short (and being streamlined)
-The lead time to install nuclear capacity is increasing.

[alancalverd]

So we would only need to use 0.01% of the incoming solar energy to meet 100% of our energy demands.

But our best collectors are only about 10% efficient, and 75% of the earth's surface is ocean, and about 50% of the solid surface is beyond feasible development, and we need nearly all the rest to feed ourselves, so it's pretty much touch and go whether we can actually generate 5 kW of controllable power per capita  from sunshine, with a projected population of 10¹⁰ people.

[Petrochemicals]

Stop washing. About 20 percent of UK energy demands are to do with modern cleanliness preferences.

Wear warmer clothes and bedding. Houses do not need to be baking hot.

Minimum pricing on consumer items. Much disposed of stuff like clothing is unused in its potential.

Ban car ownership. Walk and use public transport.

So that is a person who does a lot of physical exersise hasn't had a bath for 2 weeks in ancient clothes that they have been wearing for the last month sitting next to you on the bus before sleeping in a cold bed.

Cogeneration could also work  Electric from fossil fuels or nuclear power is less than 50 percent efficient, meaning a great ammount of energy is thrown away. By circulating this heated water to houses you could charge your electric car and wash all from one combustion source.

[alancalverd]

So that is a person who does a lot of physical exersise hasn't had a bath for 2 weeks in ancient clothes that they have been wearing for the last month sitting next to you on the bus before sleeping in a cold bed.

The UK government has been encouraging poverty and homelessness for years. They are to be applauded for saving the planet..

[Petrochemicals]

Wind and solar are quite abundant compared to humanity's energy demands: globally we average about 18 terawatts of energy usage, while global sunlight is about 17,000 terawatts (and that includes the fact that half of the world is in darkness at any given time, and the poles don't get as much as the equator). So we would only need to use 0.01% of the incoming solar energy to meet 100% of our energy demands.

I make it 500,000 terra Watts. 12,000squared pi x1, 000, 000x 1150w. As Alan says 70 percent of the surface is ocean , poler regions have problems with darkness and snow cover at exactly the time you need energy, mountains also, plus the acriculture regions and forests. . There are 25,000,000 sq km of desert on earth in non polar regions, with conditions all year round sun and high daytime temperatures. 

Geothermal energy is another important part of the puzzle.

Probably not a good idea, geothermal is only enough to produce a very small fraction of our energy needs, if we remove the heat the crust will become thicker and less ductile.

So that is a person who does a lot of physical exersise hasn't had a bath for 2 weeks in ancient clothes that they have been wearing for the last month sitting next to you on the bus before sleeping in a cold bed.

The UK government has been encouraging poverty and homelessness for years. They are to be applauded for saving the planet..

These where only test subjects though Alan, they are only recently launching broad policys to make us all homeless, they have left it too long and missed too many opportunities to save the planet.

We could chop all the forest down and burn them, replanting along the way.

[alancalverd]

Geothermal energy is another important part of the puzzle.

Not really. It's important in volcanic and tectonically active areas where the source temperature is high, but doesn't work too well elsewhere because  the thermal diffusivity of rock is quite low. The output of a geothermal borehole in stable rock decreases rapidly as you extract heat from it, so you need an awful lot of holes.