That makes no sense as English is understood.
Energy use will increase with demand, yes, but energy use is inversely related to the progress of technology. Tech always trends toward greater efficiency ==> less energy use.
An enormous respect must be paid in using nuclear energy safely. Advocating for its use while hand waving away issues and a casual dismissal of perspective indicate a lack of basic respect. To borrow from Explant, this might hurt your cause.
You are agreeing with me on one point and ignoring another. Current use cases become more efficient, but it isnât Mooreâs law. Eventually the progress will halt. And youâre ignoring all the new uses for energy weâll dream up. When in human history have we not found new uses for increased energy and demanded more?
Iâm not sure why you think this is inevitably true. Energy has to be used for something, and I can think of no obvious reasons why energy use per-capita is likely to increase much beyond what weâre already using. And as Leggat noted, most technologists understand that itâs better to design technology that uses less energy than to simply throw more energy at the problem. There are very good reasons for this: one of them is that, in the case of electrical equipment specifically, the problem of controlling power flow becomes exponentially more complicated as power levels increase. That is, controlling 100A at 1200V is a lot more difficult (and expensive) than controlling 50A at 600V. Not four times more difficult; more like 10x. Something similar applies to the issue of batteries for solar storage. The biggest wins can be made by increasing efficiency at the load end - or, as itâs often expressed, the cheapest joule of all is the joule you donât generate.
What specifically do you think weâre likely to need more energy for in the future? Most of the problems that humanity faces cannot be solved by building nuclear power stations.
Really?
How about controlling the earthâs climate year-round or climate controlled cities, undersea cities, controlling plate tectonics so that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions never happen, carbon capture, deflector shields to protect the earth from a steroids and comets, spaceship building ports building craft to explore the universe, etc.
In fact, creating wormholes would require a quadrillion times more energy than the largest atom smashers used now. The energy needed to explore the fifth dimension is almost beyond comprehension.
Endless possibilities we canât even dream of because we canât think beyond our own experiences. Thatâs why futurists are always wrong. 
There are some societies on earth that never even invented the wheel. Half the planet hasnât even figured out how to feed itself reliably. Two-thirds of the planet donât know how to govern themselves in such a manner that theyâre not locked in an endless cycle of pointless power struggles. God help us if those societies are given access to limitless supplies of energy. What theyâre absolutely not going to do with it is initiate vast and complex projects for the benefit of mankind.
When people figure out how to grow beans without getting into a fight with the neighbour about his pigs, then we can think about making wormholes into the fifth dimension and whatnot.
Thatâs why futurists are always wrong 
Perhaps with unlimited energy those societies would no longer find the need for conflict. Thereâs always the other possibility.
My point is that they would have no clue what to do with it. They already have access to unlimited energy. They simply donât want it. It isnât on their list of priorities.
If I put a nuclear reactor in your backyard, what would you do with 1.2 jiggawatts of electricity if you hadnât already invented the flux capacitor?
Depends on how big my yard is.
Who has unlimited energy now?
I think youâre conflating âunlimitedâ with âfreeâ, and youâre suggesting that nuclear reactors are free (or very cheap); that isnât even close to being true. They are eye-wateringly expensive to build and maintain, which means people who might (theoretically) benefit from their presence are those least able to build them.
There is almost no physical limit to the amount of energy you can collect from our overhead fusion reactor, which is accessible to everyone. All you have to do is pay for the means to do so. Ta-da, unlimited energy.
Any idiot can install a 500W solar panel in his backyard for about US$400, including some modest battery capacity. That would run everything heâs likely to want to run, for the next 20 years. But the average idiot wonât do it. He sees no benefit in doing so.
Local town councils in Bumfluffabad have enough funds to install 500KWp if they wanted to. But theyâd rather steal all the funds allocated to them and condemn everyone in their district to permanent poverty.
Nuclear reactor projects typically go the same way: their purpose is to allow shitloads of cash to flow into corrupt pockets, not to provide the masses with energy.
Technology, by and large, doesnât magically make social problems go away.
So are people now living in, growing food for export in and etc in either Chernobyl or fukishima? Risk assessment and realistic realisations that we arent gods should be able bit more important. Fossil fuels should be phased out. Nearly everyone agrees on that. Nuclear is clean until there is a problem. And there do tend to be problems now and then regardless of.opinion. stopping nuclear tomorrow is as dumb as continuing the old plants and waste management system for another 100 years.
seems like obvious future prospects ( from a species perspective) would want solar radiation based power sourcing to improve to extremely efficient and cleaner levels. As with all, but star light is probably far more easily infinite than uranium and the like in the near future. When they can make nuke waste safe, im all in. Too much corruption and unknowns currently to cause any form of confidence frankly.
Thatâs not much power frankly. Daily, I use over four times what that would produce in best case scenarios with 24hrs of light, and Iâm trying my best to be energy efficient.
Do the math over 10 years and take into account you annual daily average of direct sunâŚshould be simple math to determine yay or nayâŚ
I totally agree. Iâd put solar anywhere it was economically and environmentally friendly. Iâm trying to get the building leaders in the apartment Iâm living in now to persuade the owners to
install solar on the community roof, but it probably wonât happen. Lots of the owners rent their units and donât want to put any money into things. My balcony roof doesnât get enough light, and itâs technically illegal. Plus things sometimes get dropped from above. I just had to replace a $10,000 glass panel because a worker dropped a huge utility knife.
The math is for owners, not renters. However, there is an insanely huge inflation of entitlement, sellfishness and laziness that truly stops progress in a huge way here and everywhere. Lack of shits given for.long term progress kn tge ground. Everyone seems to wait for the government to do something (hilarious!) Or for super rich companies to do something terrible and pay fines to the government for them to mismanage to the entitled retarded public to get grants and project money for useless purposes. So the circle goes.
In my opinion, the solar field is best served via economic means, not personal. For example Residential), although that is more than welcome too though far less efficient.
We get people on the equator and in really rainy and / or dark regions not buying into solar. Taiwan doesnt have that excuse. Regardless of small pockets of unsuitable regions but with high population density to sway the vote.
As an example, kaohsioung is world class in .clear days (haha, enter human pollutionâŚim talking natural cloud cover) and is so extrwmely well suited. As with so many places in lowland.taiwan. taipei, less so. Should be a no brainerâŚ
"Even releasing all the stored water in a single year would produce âno more than one-thousandth the exposure impact of natural radiation in Japan,â the foreign ministry said in a reply to a UN report.
For food, Japan nationally sets a standard of no more than 100 becquerels of radioactivity per kilogram (Bq/kg), compared to 1,250 Bq/kg in the European Union and 1,200 in the US.
But for Fukushima produce, the level is set even lower, at just 50 Bq/kg, in a bid to win consumer trust. Hundreds of thousands of food items have been tested in the region since 2011.
Michiaki Kai, an expert on radiation risk assessment at Japanâs Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, said it was important to control the dilution and volume of released water.
But âthere is consensus among scientists that the impact on health is minusculeâ, he told AFP.
Still, âit canât be said the risk is zero, which is what causes controversyâ.
Geraldine Thomas, chair of molecular pathology at Imperial College and an expert on radiation, said tritium âdoes not pose a health risk at all â and particularly so when you factor in the dilution factor of the Pacific Oceanâ.
She said carbon-14 was also not a health risk, arguing chemical contaminants in seawater like mercury should concern consumers more âthan anything that comes from the Fukushima siteâ.
âI would have no hesitation whatsoeverâ eating Fukushima seafood, she added."
When comparing to carbon, fossil fuels and.etc i fall back on the old saying: 2
Two wrongs dont equal a right.
Work harder folks.
U of I professor says Japanâs discharge of nuclear waste into the ocean isnât dangerous.
If any of you were listening to ICRT this week, the Taipei times lady said she was against nuclear until she knew better.
Itâs 12% of Taiwanâs total energy. Now weâre just going to have to burn more coal and accelerate climate change.
Turn the nuclear reactors back on, and dump the waste into the ocean instead of storing it on Aboriginal land.
That;s why they make it in Norway.
No one mentioned the plan to convert all Norway;s hydro facilities to pump storage and use it as Europe and Scandinavia;s âBig Batteryâ ?
Apparently the numbers look pretty good. Once you have the storage, renewables rock. About 70% in Scotland now and theyâve hardly started on wave power.
UPDATE 97.4% Ya Bas!
Iâm sceptical about all this âNew designs are safeâ jive.
Iâm skeptical because they said that about the Westinghouse PWR which forms most of the installed global capacity and is obviously and inherently insanely dangerous.
Note that they put most of this junk in service when they had the CANDU (which is a lot safer) available, but it cost more.
You canât trust people, so you should not let them play with dangerous toys.
Many years ago I saw a notice in a fishmongers window in Whitehaven, (near the Windscale nuclear power/reprocessing/disaster site)
âThese Fish are NOT fresh caught locallyâ
Right. The technology might be âsafeâ as far as it goes. Humans, on other hand, are endlessly creative at blowing stuff up.
Iâve not heard about using Norway as âEuropeâs batteryâ, although that would obviously involve some extremely long HVDC cable runs. Not impossible, but pretty expensive and complicated.