It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The High Costs of Copenhagen
Perhaps, though not without enormous effort. Operating a power grid reliably and economically with intermittent solar and wind resources generating 40% of the electricity cannot be done today. Carbon capture and storage has yet to be demonstrated on a large scale. Meanwhile, a still vocal group of environmentalists remains adamantly opposed to nuclear energy—even though it is the only low-carbon energy source that is both scaleable and already generating large amounts of electricity.
Yet falling short on any of these decarbonization measures would require even more of the others, or even greater energy efficiency gains. Failing that, the only way to reach the 83% reduction goal would be through slower or even negative economic growth, i.e., lower living standards. This is a matter of arithmetic; it cannot be wished away.
The benefits of LFTR's
1. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient.
3. Elimination of the problem of nuclear waste.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste.
Originally posted by expat2368
Do not need nuclear power...
There is a huge amount of effort going into research on zero point energy at many levels of funding. I firmly believe a breakthrough will happen quicker than new nuclear plants can be constructed.
But dont you think corporations would bastardize the technology?
So, to make sense of my ramblings here, it could be very effective for all housing to be equipped with a combination of Wind and Solar energy production to take the drain off normal power supplies, and reduce household costs.