Firstly:
Well, solar vs nuclear.
Can anyone calculate the size of the solar panel needed to supply London energy needs?
I can.
Let's see: googling quickly I find that
London uses 154 Tw-h per year (in 1999, but give me some leeway, will ya?).
Then I check the trusty
Enerank site.
Yes, the largest photovoltaic generator in the world by peak power is, naturally, in Spain (have I mentioned we're FIFA world champions already? That's two in a row: solar energy AND football champions).
Olmedilla photovoltaic park is, probably, one of the most efficient photovoltaic systems in the world, because of its size. How large is it? At a
mere 180 Hectares, it gives you 85Gw-h.
So, let's see:
Area of photovoltaic cells to satisfy London energy needs: 154 Tw-h/85 Gw-H * 180 Ha = 326.000 Ha, give or take.
Hmmmm.... A square km has 100 Ha last time I checked. So,
we need 3260 Km2 of solar cells for London. That's like a third of the West Midlands, in dear old England. Caramba, I'd say. They're a little ugly, don't you think? Compared with the landscape of the previous picture (I'd say you have to imagine yourself
walking by these things) even a wind farm or an electric transmission line seems pretty.
If we do the same exercise for the EU, with its 1800 Mtoe used annualy (a Mtoe is 11604 Gw-h), or 21.000 Tw-h,
how large is the solar plant we need?
Area to use for Europe energy needs satisfied with solar power? Simple: 444.000 square kilometers.
That's twice the size of the United Kingdom or two thirds of France. I surely would vote for it: let's cover England, Scotland, Wales and the northern part of France (I'd spare Northern Ireland) with photovoltaic cells. Surely health effects are negligible and psychological effects are overstated: most Britons and Parisians I know seem pale and a tad crazy already: they could live under such a roof of sun panels.
Practical? Ecological? You tell me.
Secondly:
Some of us are terrified by the thought of people
starting to use nuclear power, ain't we? Surely I am. I don't want Bin Laden to interfere with my Playstation 24x7 usage...
Terrified we are. Let's not use nuclear power! Can we? Sure we can. Or maybe not...
How much nuclear power does Europe use for electric power today? 5%, perhaps?
No. More.
10%?
No. More.
20%?
Almost there. Go upwards, please.
A whooping 30% of Europe's electricity comes from nuclear power? Seriously? Ciro, do you
actually mean nuclear power is the main source of electricity in Europe? Are you kidding me?
Yes. That's it: 30%. And, yes, I'm probably kidding you anyway.
You don't believe me? Fool, check the European Energy Commission statistics for 2009:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications ... k_2010.pdf (page 30).
Let's write this again, but use the bold thingy:
Europe main source of electricity is nuclear power, not tomorrow, nor next year, but today.
Food for Edis's thought: perhaps all that plutonium around explains guys like Berlusconi and Sarkozy.
Who would have believed it? One in three words written in an european computer (hi, autogyro!) is "powered" by nuclear energy! Their computers (hi, autogyro!) reek of "nuclear electrons", going in and out, all of them carrying their tiny "Danger!" signs.
No wonder them, europeans, (hi, autogyro!) seem already radioactive...
So, I wonder if we're green (
very green).
Third:
I live in a country that gets 65% of its electricity from renewable sources. Why? Go figure. Anyway, Colombia uses hydropower: by chance and a particular guy, it is a nuclear free zone (is not like we can afford it: the grapes are green, said the fox, but we took the time to write this law...) and last time I checked the country wasn't submerged in water nor covered with photovoltaic cells.
Frankly, to me, all sources of energy have pros and cons, but hydro, I like. You lose some trees and animals but hopefully you win some algae and fish, if you're smart enough. It's peaceful, at least.
And, let's be frank, to end this post: I think we will continue to use nuclear energy and engineers of the future will find a way around our fears of misuse, gross mismanagement and lack of thorough understanding of consequences, the same way engineers of today have done with carbon energy plants and global warming (that's a joke, of course).
However, Edis, no matter what you or me think in "engineering terms", our use of energy is also commanded by our
perception of it and the idea of what's shining (lurking?) in the core of a nuclear plant gives you the creeps, if you ponder it for a while. Nuclear energy, I'd say, is not "as human" as a fire or a water-wheel, things that somehow are already
in us. It will take time, I guess.
Hi, autogyro!
