nanarchy said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
You don't need to have it negative, nobody will even bother with EROEI below 3-4 and that's a norm today, how much higher it's going to be when assosiated energy costs will go up, nobody knows. It's death spiral upside down. In terms of tech you're behind the times by a mile, would you have been as smart as you've claimed you'd have acknowledge simple facts: Europe has peaked on all fossil fules, Europe is hopelessly energy deficit, there's only two ways of covering the deficit: either by cutting costs (and given the time that is left the cutting would look more like collapse), or ramping up prodcutions of energies that could replace decline of fossil fuels, like nuclear as the best of options in terms of availability, output and price.
|
nuclear? are you out of your mind? thats the most expensive energie and the only that isnt mined enough for todays needs.
and cutting costs is no big deal, we come from the highest oil prices ever, prices that will not come again so soon with opec broken and iran sanctions lifted(the us doesnt have the power to block a deal and if europe and brics say yes to the deal the us wil follow).
|
where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium
|
nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.
and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...
