I agree with all of those problems except the new school. Research indicates that children don't benefit from smaller class sizes until you get to the point of 1 teacher to 2-3 pupils. At that point, they're a private tutor.
Do you have a source on that? I'd imagine that it'd be on a curve; You could probably easily convince me that there's not much difference between 20 and 30 kids, but get 100 elementary school kids in a class and you'll get a lord of the flies scenario before you get learning.
My quick research says different:
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html - 1978 study concluded major benefits at 'fewer than 20' with 'student assignment carefully controlled'. 1986 - smaller class sizes most beneficial k-3, disadvantaged;minority. Teacher has to adapt teaching style to smaller classes to be effective. 1989 - 'best evidence synthesis': For studies where the reduced class lasted at least a year, less than 20 compared to 'substantially larger', students comparable. result: Small positive effect that didn't persist after reduced class.
Going through the whole page; Reducing class size under 20 has a statistical benefit; but you gotta keep it up, and it's sometimes questionable as to whether it's worth the cost. After all, going from 22 kids per class to 18 will, on average, raise the number of teachers needed 22%, along with the cost for that many more teachers.
IIRC, the production of solar cells is energy intensive. The solar panels that are the best for homes use infrared radiation to assist heating of the house and water. Basically they are dark colored polymer panels with a heat exchanger in them.
I've been trying to sell solar water heaters to my familiy down in Florida. Still, electrical solar cells produce enough electricity to cover the energy used to make them in 2-3 years on average.
No where to safely store? Yucca Mountain and WIPP are pretty darn good places for starters. But as mentioned, if we move over to reprocessing fuels, and to breeders and fast breeders, you do not have ANY high lvl radioactive wastes to store....
While I agree with you for everything else, my compulsive honesty makes me chime out on this - while you reduce the high level was problem some 90% with breeders, there is still some waste. Still, it's actually 'more radioactive' which is another way to say 'decays faster' which leads to 'highly radioactive for less time'. Couple centuries vs eons.
Yucca mountain was scrapped, but the project was probably a good idea, albeit expensive.
It's still around, congress voted to not completely defund it. Obama says it's no longer an option; but that could change in as little as 3 years. Personally though, I'd go with reprocessing - most of that 'waste' is actually fuel.
Yes a large chunk of that 20 years is red tape. The red tape will never go away, so I think we better just accept it.
As Balong notes, what a defeatist attitude. I'll note that piss people off with high enough energy prices the red tape will go away.
It may be economical to produce H2 from electrolysis, but I am always suspicious of processes that are not thermodynamically efficient (defined as non negative for this conversation). IE it will always take more energy to use electrolysis to capture H2 (that will be used in a non-nuclear reactor to produce energy), than can be generated. H2 O2 Fuel cells have their place, simply not as a main energy supply. Unless the O And H can be gained for nothing.
NO process is 'thermodynamically efficient' by your standard. We use all sorts of thermodynamically inefficient processes to provide power. Don't think of the H2 as a fuel source, think of it as a
battery. It's converting the non-portable nuclear power to portable H2 power. Whether you use hydrogen or batteries or something else just depends on what works out to best cover your needs for the cost.
I will admit that I don't know the percentage of fissible Uranium, but I am skeptical of it being millions of years of an energy supply. I would buy hundreds without citation. Do you have a link?
The millions of years isn't just using Uranium, but Thorium as well. As a note, with using Thorium and breeder reactors, it's an energy positive operation to distill the stuff out of
seawater.
In the end, I don't want us to be powered 100% by nuclear, but 50% seems to be a good figure.
Reactions to article:
The offshore wind farm, nine years in the planning, has been blasted by critics like the Kennedys as an "economic boondoggle" that will cost taxpayers billions, hurt commercial fishing and pose a danger to wildlife along a pristine stretch of the Nantucket Sound.
Uneconomical? Maybe to Likely;
Hurt commercial fishing? Less likely - Commercial Fishing is Commercial Fishing's worst enemy; if anything the turbine supports will have the same effect as oil platform supports - provide shelter/attachments for fish and other sea life; creating local 'oasises' and helping commercial fishing by providing zones where breeding adults can be fully established, increasing the number of fish available for capture.
Pose a danger to wildlife? As I said; Oil platforms actually HELP sea life. We sink ships to help establish new spots for sea life.
"We're the windiest country on earth and we have lots and lots of land" on which to build wind farms, the younger Kennedy said. "Americans don’t want to pay 27 cents a kilowatt hour for energy."
You object to the potential view of turbine 5 miles and more from shore; yet support putting them on land, where presumably there'd be a lot of people closer than 5 miles away? The cost, if true, would be a valid reason to oppose. Quick google search says 9.06 cents per kwh, not 27. Still high, but within limits.
Personally, I think that a lot of the questions posed could have been addressed by a single, or better yet, a small set of test turbines - it'd also give you the benefit of having a number of turbines that are older than the ones built for weathering/maintenance study purposes.
