EU roadmap: clean energy future at no extra cost
Brussels. – A roadmap published today by the European Commission exploring different energy pathways over the next 40 years has shown that an energy system based largely on renewables and efficiency will cost taxpayers no more than a system locking Europe into fossil fuels and nuclear energy, said Greenpeace. Renewables emerge as the dominant energy source, despite skewed calculations to keep nuclear energy and fossil fuels in the energy mix.
With much of Europe’s ageing energy system in need of an upgrade, the Commission has explored five pathways: one relying most on energy efficiency, one based on a mixture of technologies, one focussed on renewables, one on nuclear energy and one on coal and gas with carbon capture and storage. Overall investment costs (including electricity price, fuel costs, investments in energy efficiency and other structural costs) are forecast to be almost identical for all scenarios, including for business as usual.
The roadmap puts the share of renewables in total energy use by 2050 at between 55% (in the lowest scenario) and 75% (in the highest scenario) – up to 97% in the share of electricity consumption. In the high renewables scenario, nuclear power and fossil fuels are reduced to mere place-holders, accounting for under 1.5% and 1% respectively in total final energy use.
Greenpeace EU energy policy director Frauke Thies said: “The roadmap shows that getting clean energy from renewables will cost taxpayers no more than getting dirty and dangerous energy from coal or nuclear power. The Commission will be tempted to overplay the role of coal and nuclear energy to appease the likes of Poland and France, but the numbers in the roadmap are unequivocal. It proves that a modern energy system can’t do without renewables and efficiency, but can easily consign coal and nuclear power to the past.”
Greenpeace supports the Commission's call to consider renewable energy objectives beyond 2020. “It is now up to the European Parliament and EU governments to commit to binding targets for renewables in 2030 and put Europe on a fast track to a clean energy system,” added Thies.
Written by: BASTA, 15 Dec 2011 11:25 AM
From: Dominican Republic, =Ghetto/Legalize Drugs
+++
Written by: RoyStone, 15 Dec 2011 12:04 PM
From: Australia
More BS from Greenpeace.
Germany has the highest implementation of renewable energy (wind turbines) and the most expensive electricity in Europe. France has the lowest, getting most power from nuclear (with imported uranium) and they have the cheapest electricity, and not one single fatality from nuclear. China had 200,000 deaths from one event, when a hydro-electric dam broke. The tiny wind turbine in the photo would generate enough for 3 average houses, provided they have big batteries and inverters for when the wind's not blowing.
Even with Japan's massive earthquake and tsunami resulting in 20,000 deaths, not one was due to nuclear radiation. Actual death toll from Chernobyl is less than 60.
Written by: RonEvane, 15 Dec 2011 12:12 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
The human race and the entire planet's ecosystem are at risk of becoming extinct!
We must stop burning fossils and using fission to provide the bulk of our energy needs.
Science has empirically proven that alternatives work just as, or better, than the status quo.
It is simply a matter of applying ourselves and fighting the oil addiction. We have, for too long, been riding an old junk of a car, without brakes, and are heading straight for the Cliff!!
We must wake up and see the light. But if we can't, it's because smog is everywhere. Oil is killing us all, in more ways than one! It also fuels the rogue states that are squeezing our balls ever harder. Let us stop the Arabs and Chavez in its' tracks; let us save ourselves and our ecosystem, while we still can.!!
Written by: RoyStone, 15 Dec 2011 12:33 PM
From: Australia
Ron I agree we need to reduce our dependence on oil, whether AGM is real or not.
However I disagree about nuclear power. It is the cheapest, safest and cleanest form of energy available, bar none. The biggest cost is not the plant or the fuel, but the compliance costs. Other forms of energy do not require the same level of safety compliance. I am glad such high standards are required, but let's not pretend the other forms of energy are safe, because they're not.
Written by: RoyStone, 15 Dec 2011 12:36 PM
From: Australia
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Written by: DomRat, 15 Dec 2011 12:41 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Roy if they gave you a nice place to live near Fukusima with a big garden and orchard, the only provision being that you live there would you really do it? In a few years the cancers and bone diseases will start showing up so huge that it will no longer be possible to ignore and deny. Japan is screwed and the stoic Japanese people will have their patience tested by the health disorders to come. Some day in the future we will learn about electromagnetic pollution as well - for now we think our cell phones and microwaves are our friendly servants.
Written by: RonEvane, 15 Dec 2011 1:05 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Roy, I'll agree that nuclear is clean, but by no means, safe. The US has been wracking its collective brain trying to figure where to put all its nuclear waste safely and permanently. As you know, They excavated Yucca mountain but have realized, it won't be sufficient. It's capacity will top out in 2025.
One other aspect you have not included in this equation, is that Uranium is also finite. What will you do when we run out?
The only nuclear devise at our disposal that is safe, will never fail, or run out of fuel, is our Sun!
It is the ultimate energy source. This is where we need to derive ALL our energy needs for eternity.
The sooner we come to our senses, the sooner we'll begin to dig the foundations for a brave, new world. One filled with plentiful food and unlimited energy!!
Written by: anthonyC, 15 Dec 2011 1:54 PM
From: United States
That report is pure, unadulterated B.S.
None of the so-called renewable energies like Solar and wind are economically practical without massive government subsidies.
No wonder Europe is broke.
From: Canada
Consider reading the book 'The God Species' ... the safest cheapest renewable energy is nuclear by a long margin ... Greenpeace contributes to air pollution by putting down the benefits of nuclear versus everything else ... losers ...
Written by: RoyStone, 15 Dec 2011 8:04 PM
From: Australia
DomRat,
My answer to your question is "yes".
I have stayed not far from Chernobyl and I don't glow in the dark. I have met a number of people who actually were living there in 1986. Total deaths from the disaster to date is less than 60 (as many as murdered in the Dominican Republic in a typical 24 hour period). The predictions of masses of cancers never eventuated. Reactors of that type have not been built for generations, and all have since been decommissioned.
Ron as far as disposal of the waste is concerned, the technology for safe storage and disposal is quite mature now. Spent nuclear fuel is much safer imbedded in specially-developed impervious artificial rock, than uranium is when left in its original mother-load of shale. Yes uranium deposits are finite, but there are enough known reserves to last us well into the next Dark Ages, and possibly until we become extinct.
Written by: RonEvane, 15 Dec 2011 9:59 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
[... the safest cheapest renewable energy is nuclear by a long margin]
Who says nuclear is renewable?
Written by: RonEvane, 15 Dec 2011 10:21 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
[ Yes uranium deposits are finite, but there are enough known reserves to last us well into the next Dark Ages, and possibly until we become extinct.]
So, are you proposing we depend solely on nuclear, and nothing else? Or shall we continue to shuffle along as if nothing's happening? That the earth isn't really warming up, and that we'd always find suitable places to bury used nukes?
You are dead wrong to think there is enough Uranium out there to satisfy the world's needs for the next 100, or even, 50 years. .Uraniun is rarer than gold! If you knew a little physics, you'd know that Uranium and other radioactive elements are manufactured in the -literary- last minutes of a dying star prior to going supernova. These elements are rare indeed! and won't last as you like to think; especially if more and more reactors go on line! ...If we ignore what science is trying to tell us, we deserve what's coming to us. Namely, a die-off such as we have not recorded, since the dinosaurs.
Written by: RonEvane, 15 Dec 2011 11:39 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
I don't know about any of you, but I would, if given the chance:......generate my own electricity with panels and turbines; would turn my poop into precious methane and fertilizer; would refine my own diesel from vegetable oil; would compost my organic garbage into rich loam to grow any kind of vegetation I wish.
It requires the investment of a little money and time, but in the end, the profits are big and satisfaction, bigger still.
There's no greater satisfaction than being energy independent as an individual and as an entire nation.
Written by: anthonyC, 16 Dec 2011 1:24 AM
From: United States
RonEvane
After you finish all that what would you do with the 5 minutes left in the day? Work or sleep.
Written by: RonEvane, 16 Dec 2011 3:00 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Once you get the ball rolling, momentum carries it and the job gets done automatically with little meddling on my part.
For instance: solar panels don't require maintenance once they are installed.
Wind turbines are self-contained units that need little in maintenance.
Ever heard of a "methane digester"? This is where all the poop goes once you flush. It does its job automatically. (google it).
Composting organic matter is simply piling up vegetation and kitchen waste into a heap and letting it rot. You turn it once a month.
The one thing that takes a little time is refining vegetable oil into biodiesel and that's fun to do.
Everything runs on automatic. My biggest problem would be what to do with all that extra time!
Written by: pelaut, 16 Dec 2011 7:55 AM
From: United States
But what if oil turns out to be a renewable source as well?
What then shall the propagandists call sun and wind power?
From: Canada
RonEvane ... check out the mining company Silver Spruce ... there is a vast quantity of uranium in labrador and northern canada ... even the 'Trillion Dollar' mineral deposit in the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario has uranium in there with the chromite, kimberlite and gold ...
my point is that vast reserves of Uranium do exist and should be there for as long as we care to use it ...
Written by: anthonyC, 16 Dec 2011 9:58 AM
From: United States
Ron Evans,
After you buy and install all those devices how old will your children be before they pay it all of? I ask about you children because there is no way you will live long enough to pay it off.
The fallacy that Solar panels are low maintenance are the stuff of ignorance. For maximum effectiveness they must be cleaned frequently not to mention that they are subject to damage and their costly repairs
Oh and what will you do when you have an overcast, windless day or 2?
Written by: RonEvane, 16 Dec 2011 9:45 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
{"But what if oil turns out to be a renewable source as well?"]
What?...Pelaut, look up the word, "renewable" and educate yourself.
Written by: RonEvane, 16 Dec 2011 10:13 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
{ " there's a vast quantity of uranium in labrador and northern canada ..."}
Federico, even if there's a "vast quantity". How long do you think it will last? 150 years +?...What then? What do we do when Uranium and petroleum are totally exhausted? How will we cope then?
Well, you can say: I'll be long gone, so what do I care?.....Well, you should care a great deal; our children's welfare and their survival depends entirely on what we do today. We need to develop and further technology that does not carry the consequences of fossils and fission.
Written by: RonEvane, 16 Dec 2011 10:28 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
{"After you buy and install all those devices how old will your children be before they pay it all"}
I have done the math and concluded that a good, reliable, solar panel array, (about 16 panels), plus installation and other hardware, would come to less that $11.000USD. Less than a used car and guaranteed reliability for the next 30 years.
{"Oh and what will you do when you have an overcast, windless day or 2?"}
Ever heard of an "inverter"?... Look it up.
Written by: RoyStone, 16 Dec 2011 10:42 PM
From: Australia
The main problem with the renewable-energy lobbyists is their inability to do sums.
The capital cost per TWHr is far higher than thermal power generation.
The detrimental environmental effects are substantial. For example the CO2 produced just in producing the cement for the foundations for a wind turbine is equivalent to 19 years CO2 output from a coal-fired power-station, producing the equivalent amount of power.
Despite very little having been spent on Uranium exploration, known reserves will last well into the future. Undiscovered reserves are probably orders of magnitude greater.
Biological sludge digestors are not new. Nearly half of Melbourne (population 3.8 million) sewerage is processed that way. However it only produces enough methane to provide the treatment plant's electricity needs, no more. Oil refineries produce more methane and much is just burnt off as a waste product. A domestic unit would produce less electricity than a single-mouse treadmill.
Written by: RoyStone, 16 Dec 2011 10:52 PM
From: Australia
Ron,
maybe when you install your compost heap, you could catch the rats it will attract, train them run in a treadmill, and generate electricity by processing their feces to make methane. Then use the electricity to run your computer, just long enough to Google and download a design for a perpetual-motion machine made from re-cycled cycles. Hey, I think I can feel an organic orgasm coming on!
Written by: RonEvane, 16 Dec 2011 11:26 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Roy, I could, but I won't engage in a debate about which form of power generation produces the most CO2.
Let me just point this out: Whether you choose to believe it or not, our atmosphere is warming up.
I won't go into details, you already know the reason. Let me just say that, on average, the typical coal burning plant spews out 100.000 tonnes of CO2 each year.
Plutonium, the most toxic element in the universe, is created as a by-product of nuclear fission. (think bombs). That alone, should be reason enough to dismantle reactors.
The, so-called, half life of most nuclear waste is measure in the thousands of years. An average reactor produces 10,000 tonnes of it, each year. If we could find suitable places to entomb it, It may not be such a problem, but we don't.
Your "solution" to the above mentioned, is to keep chugging along and ignore the "tree huggers" and radical environmentalists, because they're total idiots... Don't mess with my coal and nukes!!....Tragic!
Written by: RoyStone, 16 Dec 2011 11:56 PM
From: Australia
Ron, where do you get the 10,000 tons per average nuclear reactor from? The "worst" reactor in the USA produces 48 tons per year.
No, I don't think nuclear bombs when I think of nuclear fusion reactors, 'cause the power of nuclear bombs comes from fusion not fission (think the sun, think solar energy).
Where to put the waste?
Australia, the world's biggest source of Uranium, also has huge virtually uninhabited areas in the interior, thousands of miles from the nearest city, and also the most seismically stable geology. The only problem is it does not have the political will to adopt nuclear energy. Pity.
Plutonium the most toxic element in the universe? Well the most toxic chemicals are organic compounds, not elements. However according to Wikipedia "No human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies." Hardly reason to dismantle the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of power generation kn
Written by: RonEvane, 17 Dec 2011 12:19 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
{No, I don't think nuclear bombs when I think of nuclear fusion reactors, 'cause the power of nuclear bombs comes from fusion not fission (think the sun, think solar energy).}
Plutonium is the natural by- product of nuclear fission. Look it up... It is the stuff that causes catastrophic annihilation (when detonated), of everything within it's radius. It is the poison that kills people and renders uninhabitable, all it touches.
There's no such thing as a "nuclear FUSION reactor"...All reactors are FISSION. If we had fusion, we wouldn't have the problem of nuclear waste.
The biggest thread to humanity concerning Plutonium, isn't it's inherent danger, but the danger the radical elements or rogue nations can do with it. Think "dirty" bombs, think poisoning our lakes and streams, think jihad!
Written by: RonEvane, 17 Dec 2011 2:34 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
In order to extract energy from FUSION, one need not resort to radioactive elements.
A simple isotope of Hydrogen or Helium,(isotopes are different forms of a single element), can potentially yield the energy equivalent in roughly 500 gallons of gasoline.
Fusion in a "tokamak", to date, has been difficult to achieve because more energy is implemented than it is extracted from it.
If fusion were to be attained, at a net gain, energy would be everlasting and cheap.
(Tokamak is a device using a magnetic field to confine a plasma in the shape of a torus. )
Smaller
Bigger
Close Gallery
Facebook
Digg this
del.icio.us
Technorati
Yahoo
Germany has the highest implementation of renewable energy (wind turbines) and the most expensive electricity in Europe. France has the lowest, getting most power from nuclear (with imported uranium) and they have the cheapest electricity, and not one single fatality from nuclear. China had 200,000 deaths from one event, when a hydro-electric dam broke. The tiny wind turbine in the photo would generate enough for 3 average houses, provided they have big batteries and inverters for when the wind's not blowing.
Even with Japan's massive earthquake and tsunami resulting in 20,000 deaths, not one was due to nuclear radiation. Actual death toll from Chernobyl is less than 60.
The human race and the entire planet's ecosystem are at risk of becoming extinct!
We must stop burning fossils and using fission to provide the bulk of our energy needs.
Science has empirically proven that alternatives work just as, or better, than the status quo.
It is simply a matter of applying ourselves and fighting the oil addiction. We have, for too long, been riding an old junk of a car, without brakes, and are heading straight for the Cliff!!
We must wake up and see the light. But if we can't, it's because smog is everywhere. Oil is killing us all, in more ways than one! It also fuels the rogue states that are squeezing our balls ever harder. Let us stop the Arabs and Chavez in its' tracks; let us save ourselves and our ecosystem, while we still can.!!
However I disagree about nuclear power. It is the cheapest, safest and cleanest form of energy available, bar none. The biggest cost is not the plant or the fuel, but the compliance costs. Other forms of energy do not require the same level of safety compliance. I am glad such high standards are required, but let's not pretend the other forms of energy are safe, because they're not.
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Roy, I'll agree that nuclear is clean, but by no means, safe. The US has been wracking its collective brain trying to figure where to put all its nuclear waste safely and permanently. As you know, They excavated Yucca mountain but have realized, it won't be sufficient. It's capacity will top out in 2025.
One other aspect you have not included in this equation, is that Uranium is also finite. What will you do when we run out?
The only nuclear devise at our disposal that is safe, will never fail, or run out of fuel, is our Sun!
It is the ultimate energy source. This is where we need to derive ALL our energy needs for eternity.
The sooner we come to our senses, the sooner we'll begin to dig the foundations for a brave, new world. One filled with plentiful food and unlimited energy!!
None of the so-called renewable energies like Solar and wind are economically practical without massive government subsidies.
No wonder Europe is broke.
My answer to your question is "yes".
I have stayed not far from Chernobyl and I don't glow in the dark. I have met a number of people who actually were living there in 1986. Total deaths from the disaster to date is less than 60 (as many as murdered in the Dominican Republic in a typical 24 hour period). The predictions of masses of cancers never eventuated. Reactors of that type have not been built for generations, and all have since been decommissioned.
Ron as far as disposal of the waste is concerned, the technology for safe storage and disposal is quite mature now. Spent nuclear fuel is much safer imbedded in specially-developed impervious artificial rock, than uranium is when left in its original mother-load of shale. Yes uranium deposits are finite, but there are enough known reserves to last us well into the next Dark Ages, and possibly until we become extinct.
[... the safest cheapest renewable energy is nuclear by a long margin]
Who says nuclear is renewable?
[ Yes uranium deposits are finite, but there are enough known reserves to last us well into the next Dark Ages, and possibly until we become extinct.]
So, are you proposing we depend solely on nuclear, and nothing else? Or shall we continue to shuffle along as if nothing's happening? That the earth isn't really warming up, and that we'd always find suitable places to bury used nukes?
You are dead wrong to think there is enough Uranium out there to satisfy the world's needs for the next 100, or even, 50 years. .Uraniun is rarer than gold! If you knew a little physics, you'd know that Uranium and other radioactive elements are manufactured in the -literary- last minutes of a dying star prior to going supernova. These elements are rare indeed! and won't last as you like to think; especially if more and more reactors go on line! ...If we ignore what science is trying to tell us, we deserve what's coming to us. Namely, a die-off such as we have not recorded, since the dinosaurs.
I don't know about any of you, but I would, if given the chance:......generate my own electricity with panels and turbines; would turn my poop into precious methane and fertilizer; would refine my own diesel from vegetable oil; would compost my organic garbage into rich loam to grow any kind of vegetation I wish.
It requires the investment of a little money and time, but in the end, the profits are big and satisfaction, bigger still.
There's no greater satisfaction than being energy independent as an individual and as an entire nation.
After you finish all that what would you do with the 5 minutes left in the day? Work or sleep.
Once you get the ball rolling, momentum carries it and the job gets done automatically with little meddling on my part.
For instance: solar panels don't require maintenance once they are installed.
Wind turbines are self-contained units that need little in maintenance.
Ever heard of a "methane digester"? This is where all the poop goes once you flush. It does its job automatically. (google it).
Composting organic matter is simply piling up vegetation and kitchen waste into a heap and letting it rot. You turn it once a month.
The one thing that takes a little time is refining vegetable oil into biodiesel and that's fun to do.
Everything runs on automatic. My biggest problem would be what to do with all that extra time!
What then shall the propagandists call sun and wind power?
my point is that vast reserves of Uranium do exist and should be there for as long as we care to use it ...
After you buy and install all those devices how old will your children be before they pay it all of? I ask about you children because there is no way you will live long enough to pay it off.
The fallacy that Solar panels are low maintenance are the stuff of ignorance. For maximum effectiveness they must be cleaned frequently not to mention that they are subject to damage and their costly repairs
Oh and what will you do when you have an overcast, windless day or 2?
{"But what if oil turns out to be a renewable source as well?"]
What?...Pelaut, look up the word, "renewable" and educate yourself.
{ " there's a vast quantity of uranium in labrador and northern canada ..."}
Federico, even if there's a "vast quantity". How long do you think it will last? 150 years +?...What then? What do we do when Uranium and petroleum are totally exhausted? How will we cope then?
Well, you can say: I'll be long gone, so what do I care?.....Well, you should care a great deal; our children's welfare and their survival depends entirely on what we do today. We need to develop and further technology that does not carry the consequences of fossils and fission.
{"After you buy and install all those devices how old will your children be before they pay it all"}
I have done the math and concluded that a good, reliable, solar panel array, (about 16 panels), plus installation and other hardware, would come to less that $11.000USD. Less than a used car and guaranteed reliability for the next 30 years.
{"Oh and what will you do when you have an overcast, windless day or 2?"}
Ever heard of an "inverter"?... Look it up.
The capital cost per TWHr is far higher than thermal power generation.
The detrimental environmental effects are substantial. For example the CO2 produced just in producing the cement for the foundations for a wind turbine is equivalent to 19 years CO2 output from a coal-fired power-station, producing the equivalent amount of power.
Despite very little having been spent on Uranium exploration, known reserves will last well into the future. Undiscovered reserves are probably orders of magnitude greater.
Biological sludge digestors are not new. Nearly half of Melbourne (population 3.8 million) sewerage is processed that way. However it only produces enough methane to provide the treatment plant's electricity needs, no more. Oil refineries produce more methane and much is just burnt off as a waste product. A domestic unit would produce less electricity than a single-mouse treadmill.
maybe when you install your compost heap, you could catch the rats it will attract, train them run in a treadmill, and generate electricity by processing their feces to make methane. Then use the electricity to run your computer, just long enough to Google and download a design for a perpetual-motion machine made from re-cycled cycles. Hey, I think I can feel an organic orgasm coming on!
Roy, I could, but I won't engage in a debate about which form of power generation produces the most CO2.
Let me just point this out: Whether you choose to believe it or not, our atmosphere is warming up.
I won't go into details, you already know the reason. Let me just say that, on average, the typical coal burning plant spews out 100.000 tonnes of CO2 each year.
Plutonium, the most toxic element in the universe, is created as a by-product of nuclear fission. (think bombs). That alone, should be reason enough to dismantle reactors.
The, so-called, half life of most nuclear waste is measure in the thousands of years. An average reactor produces 10,000 tonnes of it, each year. If we could find suitable places to entomb it, It may not be such a problem, but we don't.
Your "solution" to the above mentioned, is to keep chugging along and ignore the "tree huggers" and radical environmentalists, because they're total idiots... Don't mess with my coal and nukes!!....Tragic!
No, I don't think nuclear bombs when I think of nuclear fusion reactors, 'cause the power of nuclear bombs comes from fusion not fission (think the sun, think solar energy).
Where to put the waste?
Australia, the world's biggest source of Uranium, also has huge virtually uninhabited areas in the interior, thousands of miles from the nearest city, and also the most seismically stable geology. The only problem is it does not have the political will to adopt nuclear energy. Pity.
Plutonium the most toxic element in the universe? Well the most toxic chemicals are organic compounds, not elements. However according to Wikipedia "No human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies." Hardly reason to dismantle the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of power generation kn
{No, I don't think nuclear bombs when I think of nuclear fusion reactors, 'cause the power of nuclear bombs comes from fusion not fission (think the sun, think solar energy).}
Plutonium is the natural by- product of nuclear fission. Look it up... It is the stuff that causes catastrophic annihilation (when detonated), of everything within it's radius. It is the poison that kills people and renders uninhabitable, all it touches.
There's no such thing as a "nuclear FUSION reactor"...All reactors are FISSION. If we had fusion, we wouldn't have the problem of nuclear waste.
The biggest thread to humanity concerning Plutonium, isn't it's inherent danger, but the danger the radical elements or rogue nations can do with it. Think "dirty" bombs, think poisoning our lakes and streams, think jihad!
In order to extract energy from FUSION, one need not resort to radioactive elements.
A simple isotope of Hydrogen or Helium,(isotopes are different forms of a single element), can potentially yield the energy equivalent in roughly 500 gallons of gasoline.
Fusion in a "tokamak", to date, has been difficult to achieve because more energy is implemented than it is extracted from it.
If fusion were to be attained, at a net gain, energy would be everlasting and cheap.
(Tokamak is a device using a magnetic field to confine a plasma in the shape of a torus. )