patrick.net

FunTime says

Doesn't that trade one energy source/waste problem for another? What do we do with nuclear waste? We bury it now. Will that work long-term? Launch it into space?

Pretty much anything we do is trading one energy source/waste problem for another, yes even with solar or wind. Each PVC panel results in hundreds of tons of toxic waste (mostly in the form of contaminated water either during production or mining for materials) as a by product for instance. Wind power requires tons of batteries for load balancing and each one of those results huge amounts of toxic waste too even with reprocessing.

No energy source will be perfect. You have to (literally) pick your poison.

I like nuclear since a)we've got at least a hundred years before we run into fuel supply issues with known stock piles of uranium, b)when reprocessed the amount of waste requiring long term storage and disposal is miniscule (something like a few tons worth per year for dozens of reactors), and c)some nuclear reactor designs can use thorium as a fuel instead of uranium or plutonium which we have vast amounts more of. There is some truly incredible long term potential there if thorium is considered too, certainly hundreds more years at a minimum. And d)we already know how to build good nuclear reactors that are much safer than what was made back in the 60's or 70's, its a solution that can be implemented now or soon and we know it'll work.

Wind and solar require lots more fundamental work to be made practical as a major source of energy, much less to power nearly the entire country and get us off coal, oil, or nuclear power altogether. Discovery doesn't work on a time table and isn't predictable regardless of how much money or resources you throw at it so the problems with solar and wind could be solved tomorrow...or 50 years from now...or never.

We just plain don't know.

That's just it. Almost every human activity has some negative impact on the environment. I guess the trick is to find the energy source with the best benefit-to-impact ratio.

I can't help but be "pro nuclear" for the following reasons:
1) a lot of CO2 comes from electricity generation, and switching from fossil fuel plants to nuclear plants won't affect anyone's lifestyle. I'm guessing that Nuclear NIMBYism is less of an obstacle than convincing Americans to give up their beloved automobiles.
2) the technology is proven

That doesn't mean every location should have nuclear plants: think places prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. In those areas it's probably best to stick with the traditional fuels.

joshuatrio says

Anyone use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation? I've been doing it for almost a year now and really enjoy it. I know it's not for everyone, but it saves a ton of money each month - and bikes are cheap/easy to maintain.

Count me in! I just looked at my bike stats for last year: went to work by bicycle every day except three (stupid rainstorms!); just over 8000 km in total; was on the bicycle in some form on 332 of the 365 days in the year.

My commute takes about 30-35 minutes by bike and about 20-25 by car. It's about 18 miles round trip. It's pretty safe, great exercise, lowered my blood pressure 20 points and lost my love handles. Wife loves it.

Mine is 50-55 minutes out (lots of cars on the road; can't go too fast and get sweaty before work) and 35-40 minutes in (no cars anywhere and I can go as fast as I like). Only 16 miles (26 km) round trip.

My job finishes early in the morning before the trains start running, so while my company officially disapproves, it sure beats standing around at the station waiting for an hour. The sun comes up early here, but nobody is out doing anything, so at 5 AM I have the roads to myself; it's great.

The only problem is if some buffoon punches a hole in my tire while I'm at work, or if I get a flat on the road at that odd hour. There are no shops open, and I don't have the maintenance equipment I've got at home, so I'm stuck walking the rest of the way if that happens!