[Lewis Thomson (OP)]

David has a few queries that he's hoping we can give him answers to.

"Is Nuclear Power the only alternative to reducing global fossil fuel pollution?

(as an aside : would using solar panels in the Sahara desert be an alternative to power Europe and possibly the world? How much land would be required, for the UK, to use wind or solar energy - and would this in itself create other problems with the environment and nature?)

Does economics dictate the future of human kind and this of human-made pollution?"

Discuss your findings in the comments below...

[Zer0]

Thanks for your Question David.
🙏
Nuclear power brings with it Risks & Hazards.
☢️
Solar & Hydro & Wind are the Power of the Future.
☀️🌊🌪️
I'm unable to dish out how much & how many We shall need.
🤷
But if Human Population isn't kept under check, then Nothing will Suffice.
👎

P.S. - The Planet has Enough for everyone's Need, but Not enough for everybody's Greed.
☠️

[alancalverd]

In order to sustain a reasonably aspirational (i.e.European) standard of living we need an average of 5 kilowatts of "artificial" power per person. Some of this is used directly for personal transport, domestic temperature control and suchlike, but more than half is "hidden" in the production and processing of food and water, manufacture of durable products, public services, etc.

Nuclear power has a very small ongoing carbon footprint, and unlike wind and solar electricity,  does not require significant buffer storage if the grid is large enough. But it requires a substantial energy input to build a nuclear power station, mine and refine the initial fuel load, and develop facilities for processing and storing waste products. Starting from here and now, the only practical source of that energy is fossil fuels and the break-even point where the nuke has generated more energy than it took to build, is somewhere between 5 and 20 years. It is not clear whether there is sufficient fossil fuel available to build the requisite generating capacity of 5 x 10¹³ watts (10 times present total capacity) and maintain that capital equipment to breakeven.

The more significant technical problem is that more than half of our present energy use is for processes that cannot be economically or practically substituted by electrical power. Even assuming we could, for instance, replace all road transport and agricultural machinery with electric vehicles, that would require manufacturing 2 billion new vehicles, each of which currently requires the expenditure of around 20 tonnes of fossil fuel, and replacing around 150,000,000 every year thereafter. Electric ships are feasible but with present technology would have a significant deadweight  and take an uneconomically long time to refuel. Electric aircraft are just feasible but will require a significant investment in new infrastructure if they are to become practicable means of public transport, and the cost of flying will revert to luxury personal journeys, not air freight and cheap holidays.

Infrastructure and capital machinery costs would be lower, and moving machinery more practical, if we substitute hydrogen for liquid fuels, or use "green" electricity (nuclear or renewable) to turn plant material into petroleum substitutes, but this will require a significant shift in agriculture (more plants, less meat) to become sustainable.

The simplest  solution is to reduce energy demand. This can be done at no cost, with immediate benefits to everyone,  by simply making fewer babies and allowing the population to decrease to a sustainable level of about 10 - 20% of present numbers over the next 100 years. But this requires a new approach to economics, with stasis or reduction taking the place of growth as a goal.

[Petrochemicals]

I believe not, I believe the energy use is warming the planet, not the carbon dioxide

Solar & Hydro & Wind are the Power of the Future.

Scientifically speaking, gas and oil and to a reducing amount, coal are the power of the present. Politically speaking expensive fuel is the fuel of the present.

[Bored chemist]

In order to sustain a reasonably aspirational (i.e.European) standard of living we need an average of 5 kilowatts of "artificial" power per person. Some of this is used directly for personal transport,

Or we need to use less power, but more efficiently.
We recently discoverd that a lot of energy used in commuting was not actually needed.

[alancalverd]

If we cut out personal transport, the number would drop to about 4 kW per capita. Energy saved  by not travelling to an office is offset by having to heat and light your home, which has a lower occupancy and a larger surface area per capita - and the taxman agrees!   

[Bored chemist]

. Energy saved  by not travelling to an office is offset by having to heat and light your home, w

Did you miss this bit?

e need to use less power, but more efficiently.

[alancalverd]

Not at all. The density of workers in an office is much higher than at home, so less space heating and lighting per capita is the norm, which is why the taxman is quite generous towards the selfemployed in this respect.

I might revise my estimate towards 4.5 kW since, on a worldwide  scale, a lot of commuters actually make something in a factory (not the UK, obviously) and therefore need to be there and consume energy. And "white van man" is an essential part (maybe 30%) of commuter road traffic because you can't bring your roof to his workshop.

We also need to consider the opening "standard of living" phrase. Trains and buses run pretty much all day because folk need to go shopping and like to visit sick relatives......Service frequency may double during rush hours, but that's only quarter of the working day, and airline schedules are limited only by airspace considerations.

Personal transport is part of our aspirations - and everyone else's. Trade transport is pretty much inevitable. Some years back I did the calculations for a "back to nature" cooperative who wanted to use horses. It turned out that, if they were going to trade in the local city, a van would emit less CO2 because it only did so when it was working, whilst the horse would breathe and fart all and every day.