edu again 3937

Therefore we must make a commoditised nuclear plan that remains safe. Some challenge.

Perhaps we can gain 30% by increased efficiency; and another 30% by offloading energy use from petrol to the grid. That will actually be a negative contribution if the grid is coal-fired.

I see the need for around four times as much car use if the rest of the world is to participate at near equal terms.

If we use all available gas+oil we cannot even double the figure. Using all available oil+gas, PLUS hybrids with plug-in option can actually do the trick. Then slowly let grid-supplied stored energy take over for the petrol.

This will take 40% of the supply away from the grid, and nearly alone double the grid load; and more when the petrol subsbreastution starts to happen.

We will have to fill that shortfall.

Hydro projects like the three gorge dam and the 2nd Itapu are enourmous; but they do huge damage; and only has potential to fill around 5% of global energy needs. But they still keep Sao Paulo ticking.

At the current rate we increase CO2 around 2 ppm per year; staying at around 380 ppm. The area around 600 ppm is a critical point according to lots of models; and we will see severe non-climatic effects from the chemical properties of C02 at around 1100 ppm.

Using the current fuels we will get to 600 in around 2150, but will probably have succumbed to depleted oil wells before that. Going for coal will get us there by 2040, and to 1100 before 2200.

We must bring the alternatives out into the open.

"Apres moi, la deluge!" was a saying of Louis XIV, the "sun king". We may make that a reality.

One of many new nuclear designs that may just make the transition to 10x nuclear power simpler.

Buy arctic facing, arable land at 60-90 meters albreastude. Buy now, while it is still cheap.

The arctic ocean will skyrocket in temperature once the ice is gone; and transform siberia and canada into areas like the current western europe in climate.

-- mrr