And the profits grow

[kandrathe]

"My household uses about 140 kWh/day"

Over 4 times the average? Don't you think that's irresponsible? You should be ashamed instead of trying to tell the rest of the world how to solve things.

I already explained why this is the case. I use no fuel oil or natural gas. Now, if you want to compare carbon footprints... 1 KWH = 3,413 BTU, 1 cubic foot of NG/Propane = 1020 BTU, 1 gallon of heating oil = 139000 BTU. NG sells for about $13 to $15 per Mcf(1000 cubic feet), and people usually use between 70 and 100 Mcf/year for heating. People who use fuel oil typically use from 600 to 1200 gallons of fuel oil a year for heat, or 166,800,000 BTU's/year. That would be 48871.96 kWh/year, or 4072.66 kWh/month, 135.76 kWh/day. I use 669.92 Therm per year to heat and cool my home, while the average for the Midwest is between 700 and 1000 just for heating. I'm not ashamed.

When fuel oil reaches $4/gallon, they will be spending $4800/year for heating, and I will be spending $1260 ($.05/kWh).

We can debate the merits of electric baseboard heating if you like. I'm not a big fan of it either for efficiency, but the cost of refitting my home with a new geothermal heating/cooling system is not in my current budget. Part of the problem is related to where I live, Minnesota. A place that can get to -40F in winter (with sustained periods in January/February of -20F), to 103F in July (with some sustained period in the 90's F). We need heating, and cooling here or people die. So, should we all abandon the northern States? Evacuate Canada entirely! It's not uncommon for people around here to use the same or more kWh/day AND have gas or fuel oil heating.

If it wasn't for people like you, we might not even have this problem.

I've got a sharp stick and some ideas of where you can shove it.

"The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle."

At the moment, there is only one reactor in the world capable of doing this, and it's meant for research. The first commercial reactor that will work like this is planned for 2016 (with the current 'cheap' Uranium, such installations form a substantial financial risk, and it may take a long time before we see more of them). But even those reactors can only reduce the amount of so called High Level waste, and they will increase the amount of Low and Mid Level waste (with half-times up to 200 years). While this looks like a great benefit, we must not forget that most accidents happen with Low Level waste.

Source: Nuclear Reprocessing or Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle-- Since beginning operations in 1976, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years. Your knowledge and understanding is deficient here.

"But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter."

Yeah, sure. But right now, you are burning huge amounts of coal and oil. We don't have fission yet, but you can already try to spend a bit less and buy a solar panel to compensate for the rest, you know.

Make it economically viable and a net win and I will do it. You are also burning huge amounts of coal and oil. Tell me about your solar panel and all green things you are doing for the rest of us. NEWS FLASH: We do have FISSION! And, a large percentage(11%) of my energy is generated safely from it! 6% of my power comes from wind generators. 3.1% is from hydro. And, as XCEL gets greener, so too will I.

"There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power."

The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...

And, you sir, maybe do not understand math or physics. Instruct me on how you plan on capturing enough solar energy to power New York City(146,887,419 MWh), and where the money will come from to pay for the needed infrastructure. You are probably just trying to insult me further, but in case you truly didn't comprehend, any device used to capture solar power will have a limit on how much sun it can capture. If a 1.6 sq. meter panel is rated for 200 watts, it doesn't matter how much sun falls on it. It will generate at most 200 watts as its peak capacity. Here is another *real* solar panel for your edification -- SunPower 215, costs $1,178.32, is 1.24 square meters, with 215 watts peak capacity, or 161.3 watts per square meter.

Oh, and btw... http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf

"Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only 8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation 50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation 5g CO2eq/kWhel) [OEKO 2007]."

This is a bit disingenuous. Do you want to measure the additional CO2 exhaled by the miners? Yes, nuclear fuel is transported and processed, which is currently done with hydrocarbon based energy. But, could it be done with green energy sources? Of course. How about the coal and oil needed to make and ship solar panels, or lead acid batteries used for storing electricity?

Get off your high horse, and get a clue.