In the late 1970’s France decided to go nuclear in a big way. The country’s journey into nuclear energy is unique in that they began with very little generating capacity and set out to completely change the base energy in one of the most developed countries in the world. The numbers say it all. They have done very very well at the task by committing to nuclear energy and doing the job right at every level.
Public opinion in France has polled highly behind nuclear energy. Better than 70% of the population had a good opinion of the technology, despite the efforts by anti-nuclear lobby groups to oppose nuclear energy. In France, communities take pride in their local nuclear power plants and the bounty it has provided them. (source)
Vital Stats:
Electricity Generating Capacity: 79% nuclear
Electrical Energy Production: 85.7% nuclear
Active Power Plants: 59
Energy Supply (Total): Nuclear generated electricity accounts for as much as 40% of France’s energy usage. France hopes to increase this by increasing the use of electricity for transportation.
Fossil Fuel Electricity Production: <5%
Electrical Exports: Up to 18% of the power generated in France is exported, making it one of the largest exporters in Europe.
(source1) (source2) (source3)
France generates nearly all baseload power from nuclear energy. 9.3% of electricity is generated by hydroelectric power, making it the second largest source of electricity. Less than 5% comes from fossil fuel. In most cases, fossil fuel power plants are only used for times of unusually high demand and low supply (peakers). Only 3.3% of the electricity in France is generated by burning coal.
Accounting for exports, which far exceed the fossil fuel which France burns to generate power, the net effect is actually the equivalent of greater than 100% use of non-carbon sources for domestic power.
(source)
Time Scale:
France began with only a small nuclear energy capacity in 1980 and reached greater than 50% nuclear energy by 1990. By the mid 1990’s, nuclear energy accounted for the vast majority of electricity generated in France.
In order to do this, France had to build 56 nuclear reactors in a period of only 20 years as well as construct enrichment, fuel fabrication, waste disposal and other support infrastructure almost from scratch.
(source)
Economics:
France is the largest exporters of electricity in the entire world, exporting more than 100 Terawatt hours annually to Germany, Italy, Britain and others.
France has some of the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. In 1998 it was .047 US dollars (4.7 US cents) per kilowatt hour. The price in 2006 was .051 US dollars both due to a weakening US dollar and a small increase in the cost of electricity in France.
The largest force driving the price of electricity in France is exports. Ironically, although France has a surplus of electricity, it is becoming more lucrative to export the power to countries like Germany or the UK where the electricity prices are .089 USD and .087 USD respectively. For this reason, some in France have called for reduced exports. The lucrative market in energy-starved countries neighboring France is seen as the largest danger to the economics of electricity for French consumers.
Energy Usage:
Per capita, France has some of the highest energy usage of any European country. It is ranked number 10 in the world, above Ireland, Japan, Germany, the UK and Switzerland. Of the countries which use more energy, most have a distinctly colder climate. The United States uses considerably more as well, but we’re glutens like that and we like our cars big. (source)
Effect on the Environment:
Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide emissions are down 70% in the past 20 years. Co2 is down dramatically and all this has occurred despite a tripling of the power output of the country. Despite the increase in motor vehicles and energy use in general, CO2 emissions dropped from a height of 600 million metric tons in the mid 1970’s to less than 400 million metric tons by the mid 1990’s. (source1) (source2)
French Co2 Compared to Other Countries:
Per Capita Co2: 6.2 metric tons annual (2004)
World wide rank: Number 63 (one of the lowest of any industrial nation)
By Comparison:
Qatar: 69.2 Metric Tons – Rank 1
Kuwait – 38.0 Metric Tons – Rank 2
UAE – 37.8 Metric Tons – Rank 3
Luxemburg – 24.9 Metric tons – Rank 4
The United States: 20.4 Metric Tons – Rank 10
Canada: 20.0 Metric Tons – Rank 11
Norway: 19.09 Metric Tons – Rank 12
Australia: 16.3 Metric tons – Rank 13
Chez Republic: 11.2 Metric Tons – Rank 26
Ireland: 10.4 Metric Tons – Rank32
United Kingdom: 9.79 Metric Tons – Rank 37
Germany 9.79 Metric tons – Rank 38
Iceland: 7.6 Metric Tons – Rank 53
Click here for a complete list
Fuel Cycle and Waste:
Frances uses approximately 10,000 tons of uranium annually. With the exception of some enriched uranium bought from Russia all uranium is enriched domestically.
France imports more than half of the uranium currently used for nuclear energy. The primary nations which supply this are Canada, Niger, Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia. (source)
Over 70,000 metric tons of uranium have been mined domestically in France and known recoverable reserves total greater than 200,000 metric tons. If necessary, France is capable of supplying its own uranium needs from domestic reserves for decades using the current fuel cycle. Importing of uranium currently is more economical, but the ability to be self-reliant has been demonstrated. (source)
France has one of the most active recycling systems for spent nuclear fuel.
High level waste from reprocessing of nuclear fuel is vitrified into a material which has been tested for long term durability and inert qualities. Each year, France produces approximately 160 cubic meters of the diluted waste in a glass-like form. The material is being stored in dry secure storage and will soon be transferred to deep geological storage. The material will be less radioactive than the original ore in a matter of centuries. (source)
France also generates a large volume of low and medium level waste, most of which consists of contaminated equipment, membranes, fluid and residue. Much of this material can be decontaminated but this expense is generally considered unwarranted. The waste is solidified in concrete in stainless steel drums.
Some of the spent fuel is maintained in “fuel banks” as a strategic reserve,
Safety Record:
Spotless (source)
There has never been a major incident which put public health and safety at risk. The worst incidents have all been contained and completely within the capabilities of redundant safety systems. The worst nuclear security event in French history is considered to be the 1982 Missile attack on a nuclear facility by the Swiss Green Party. Although the nuclear core had not been installed at the time, it was still considered an unsettling safety incident which could easily have been fatal. (Irony anyone?)
The Future:
France has already stated an interest in developing Generation IV reactor technologies and hopes to begin replacing their current reactors with more efficient fast spectrum reactors within the next 20 years. France has also lead the way in new reprocessing technologies and transmutation of waste by accelerators and fast spectrum reactors.
Conclusion:
France has seen an extreme economic benefit from the use of nuclear energy and has become the most self-sufficient country in all of Europe for energy needs. The economics have been demonstrated by the fact that it is now a huge exporter of electricity.
The environmental aspects have been equally positive. In France, nearly all CO2 production is from sources other than electricity generation. This is considerably different than most other industrial countries. The ample supply of clean electricity has also allowed France to begin looking into ways of reducing carbon fuels for transportation, heating and other needs by replacing them with electricity.
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Good Science, Nuclear.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
April 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I want to apologize for linking to the video from North Korea. If you haven’t watched it yet, it has horrible things in it such as children being imprisoned and starved to death and canibalism. This is the reality of North Korea, which many in the left and Green speak of with some admiration. In many ways this is the reality of the utopian vision.
In contrast, a little to the south in energy rich south Korea you see things like this:
http://www.wayfaring.info/2008/03/16/seoul-commune-2026-future-project/
This is the kind of thing an energy rich society does, Green and efficient with a good lifestyle.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
You are all so full of **** it’s amazing to me that you don’t choke on it. You call it propaganda but then you fall for the french propaganda. You know that France is only nuke because the government pays the fees under the table and the amount of money which is also spent on waste from it and the health problems they have is also not counted. It is not cheap at all and France is getting poor from it. France has realized that nuclear is not the way to go or at least some have there which is why they stopped building new ones and now is their chance to start to move from their failed policy.
This article has a bunch of idiotic statements in it that make no sense. It says the biggest threat to the price of electricity in france is that it is so expensive in other countries and that makes no sense at all because that would just mean the French are even better off. Then it says france could supply their own uranium if they wanted but they don’t. That is idiotic too! “Oh we could if we wanted to” Yeah but then do it!
You guys are all idiots or part of the problem. Big nuclear means big money and too many people are powerful in France and have the money coming in from raping the land and people with nuclear.
Renewable is how to do it which is how other countries like Denmark and Germany do it. Germany is closing all their nuclear plants because they are pro-environment so they replace them with renewable and Denmark and some other countries are also going to be all renewable very soon. This is how you do it and it’s so simple it’s amazing anyone would fall for the nuclear lie.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Don’t tell me you can’t get the energy or that there would need to be huge cuts. Wind energy is able to provide ten times as much energy as the world needs and solar gives us more energy every day then is used in a whole year. It’s out there for the taking. We could use as much energy as we want and get it for free if we got smart.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Brave To Oppose It said:
First it is you that has no idea what they are talking about. You have absolutely no idea how the French government works, or why the French turned to nuclear power in the first place. President de Gaul put it bluntly: ‘no, oil, no gas, no choice.’ It wasn’t a decision made lightly.
The French don’t mine uranium in France because it is cheaper to by it elsewhere, and domestic supplies are security.
The rest of your tirade is unintelligible nonsense from an ignoramus that is beneath my dignity to respond too.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
DV82XL said:
True, but it seems they were in a way blessed by having no choice. The decision would be a wise one for even a country like the US or Australia, both of which could easily meet their energy needs with their domestic supplies of coal. France’s decision did not only make them equally energy independent and successful to countries with fossil fuels, it made them better off.
Lets not forget that they are only the most extreme example of almost no nuclear capacity to complete reliance on it. Japan, South Korea, Sweden have also been working toward more nuclear energy and doing well at it.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Also, “Brave To Oppose It” you’re actually not brave at all. Just ignorant and probably not so smart in general.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Well, the French auto-industry is working hard on PHVs. Once they are deployed in significant numbers, France wont have that much excess electricity to export. This will certainly spell the end of the Birkenstock phase in Germany. There public opinion is already changing in light of the exorbitant electricity prices caused by the high subsidies to windmills.
The higher particle pollution, to a large extent caused by coal plants, already forced many people to buy new cars because many older ones are no longer allowed to drive into many cities. Of course the red/black government blamed the particle pollution on the cars to detract from the failed energy policy of the green/red coalition.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
KLA said:
Yeah well I’m sorry I don’t have the numbers handy but really the stuff that comes out of the tailpipe of most modern automobiles with a decent catalytic converter and running on unleaded is not all that bad by comparison to coal exhaust even from some of the “clean” plants that have scrubbers. I suppose if you go to the end of the line with “clean coal” then you have gasification which is theoretically pretty clean of particulates although it produces a lot of solid and liquid waste in the process.
But yeah, I would not really blame cars. Proportionately for both CO2 and general air pollution gasoline is not so bad. It is basically hydrocarbons but more hydrogen than carbon proportionately. It has some sulfur but generally very little else to worry that much about.
Coal contains considerably more sulfur, it is considerably more sooty, it has all manner of heavy metals and produces a ****tail of volatile organics, dioxins and other nasties and far more nitrous emissions. And they burn so goddamned much of it.
IMHO, priority wise you shouldn’t really worry too much about cars until you have the coal burning issue taken care of. The only thing that is a big issue with vehicles is that oil is more of a national security issue because coal is as plentiful as dirt (and just about as dirty).
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
drbuzz0 said:
That in and of itself is reason enough to move to replace it, and these are mutually exclusive objectives – with enough nuclear energy we can do both.
More to the point however is that the CBC is reporting that food riots that have broken out in several places this week, like Egypt, Mexico, Morocco, and elsewhere because of rapid price increases in staples like cereal stocks and cooking oils is directly a result of higher transportation fuel costs and shortages caused by bio-fuel production.
We tend to forget that the real staples of human existence today are wheat, corn, soybeans and rice and the cost of these has become a major issue in the last two years. By some counts, a third of the U.S. corn crop this year will go into the production of ethanol and other related bio-fuels, causing the stockpiles of wheat, rice and corn to drop as low as they have been since the 1970s — in the case of wheat, as low as they have been since the Second World War. No one expects prices to ease any time soon.
So while you are right in stating that the air pollution issue isn’t a real problem at the moment with transportation fuels the developing crises in food supplies definitely is.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Very true. However really there are two problems here the first being fixed site power. That can be addressed by nuclear energy alone.
The second problem is for transportation. Nuclear energy provides the foundation energy for that, but it alone is not enough. There need to be two (and possibly three) parallel actions.
The first is a movement to nuclear energy for primary energy needs both electric and secondarily for process heat either via a movement to electric or direct heat transfer. That is doable within the current system via nuclear energy by simply building more nuclear plants and using the energy from those whereever possible.
The second is for a move toward electric-centric transportation. This is doable with current technology in some forms, but cars are tougher. I favor the “plug-in hybrid” approach because it works perfectly with the systems in place and can coexist well with legacy technologies like direct gas fueled engines for the interm. It can also get a jump start while things like molten salt batteries for cars and better lithium ion polymers and capacitors are developed. It also provides a good segway to producton retooling because you see benefits right away but don’t have to do it all at once. The goal is to start off by reducing, but not eliminating gas usage. If a person only uses gasoline for 40% of their driving that is a HUGE savings. In time this can translate to more electricity focused transport and the engine becomes increasingly seen as an APU for allowing long trips or times when there is no charging avaliable. Eventually it could even be phased out in most cars.
The third project is cleaner synthetic fuels. Synthetic fuels are easy as long as you have ample energy to break down and rebuild the hydrocrabons. If the need for oil is cut by enough then synthetics might not be needed because local oil supplies will be plenty to cover transitional technologies, aviation, legacy equipment, long haul driving and so on. If it turns out that in the interm this is not enough then synthetics can come into play.
I think using atmospheric CO2 as the feedstock is unnecessarily complicated and has little benefit. With some simple thermal reactions and steam reformatting we can use waste material and coal and do it fine with those as long as there’s a good source of the process heat.
Atmospheric CO2 is something to think about for the more distant future. When we can say “Well, our energy needs seem to be completely covered. What else can we tackle.. how about moving some of those synthetic fuel plants to capturing the Co2 in the atmosphere”
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Nuclear = Dangerous
Nuclear = Waste Problem
Nuclear = Problems for Future Generations
Nuclear = Health Problems
Nuclear = The Most Expensive Way to Boil Water
Nuclear = Terrorist Target
Nuclear = Makes CO2
Nuclear = Unsustainable
Nuclear = Replaces One Problem With Another
Nuclear = Can make weapons = war = death
Nuclear = Wrong Answer
Nuclear = Insanity
There is only one nuclear reactor which is safe. It is the sun. That is the only nuclear power we should consider. It’s there for the taking and its free if we choose to use it.
You people need to go to school or something. Haven’t you ever heard of solar power? Wind? Are you blind? We do not need nuclear. The power is right there. This is crazy. Everyone knows solar and wind and carbon neutral biofuels is the way to go and nuclear is the worst. Get with the program, morons.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Trey said:
Ah, you smite us with your logic, NOT. At least some of have gone to school. In my case engineering school. Where i learned about such things as the second law of thermodynamics, physics and structures. On my own I have been collecting such books as Steam, Its Generation and Use(2 copies), Nuclear Engineering, Turbomachinery and oh yes, Power From The Wind. Which guess what lays out all the engineering detail about wind energy. The problem with the renewables is that while the energy is free collecting it isn’t. Here’s a case in point:
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/enercon_e126_worlds_largest_wind_turbine.php
Note how big this machine is. Yet its only 7 MW the same size as a small gas turbine, large diesel generator or small research reactor. As for danger, engineers learn to assign risks and nuclear has proven to be fairly safe. Certainly much safer that operating coal power plants of the same size with the problem of mining, transporting and burning the fuel and dealing with the byproducts. As for being the most expensive way to boil water, according to power officials that I have talked to in the past nuclear power plants are the cheapest to operate, especially here in CT. As for the waste, which actually has a lot of promising materials in it if reprocessing were handled better. In a nuclear power cycle all aspects of the byproduct cycle is contained and easily handled by transportable containers with no exposure by the public and indeed very little exposure by the workers with very little health risks involved unlike coal plants which have large health problems involved with them. As for being a terrorist target, armored bunkers are softer than the containment vessels of all the reactors currently in operation. At that even a direct hit form a bunker buster would not cause enough damage to prevent the reactor from shutting itself down and a water moderated reactor stops reacting without moderator as the neutrons become too fast and poison the reaction. As for being unsustainable fissionable reserves have lately been measured in thousands of years for various fissionable elements. If necessary fuel can be bred for a supply that is inexaustable. As for weapons proliferation concerns, well power generators are actually helping by being fueled by fissionable material being removed from weapons and recycled into fuel rods. It is impossible to use fuel rod unspent or spent to make weapons without having the resources to make nuclear devices already in hand.
But of course you are not the kind of person who deals in facts when appeals to emotion, scare tactics and name calling works for you. Knowledge and facts gets in the way of indulging by having your head up your ass and breathing the substances therefrom.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 12:42 am
J Carlton said:
I know I’m quoting myself, but here’s a brochure from Kawasaki Turbines to make my point:
http://www.kawasakigasturbines.com/files/gtgs012206.pdf
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 12:46 am
When you say “here in CT” do you mean Connecticut? If so may I ask where you’re located. You should come to a BBQ or something some time. Actually I have not had any yet this season but ya know. Not enough locals I know well enough to get a good BBQ going as big as I’d like in general.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Brave To Oppose It said:
Wow, dude. Just…wow.
“Wind energy is able to provide ten times as much energy as the world needs and solar gives us more energy every day then is used in a whole year. “
You claim what they’re discussing is propaganda and at the same time you blatantly spew the ecotard gospel? I hate to break it to you, but wind and solar are increasingly being demonstrated to be uneconomical for grid power. Many posts here have addressed the issue.
It’s up to you to decide whether or not it agrees with your religion and what to make of it.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Yeah wind and solar can provide all that energy he’s talking about, but only if you cover every square inch of the earth’s surface with solar cells. Of course then you’d still not get quite as much becasue of the conversion effeciency, but who’s counting, right? The idea is ridiculous any way. It’s almost as ridiculous as thinking you could capture the energy from each and every air molecule from the ground to the upper stratosphere all over the surface of the planet.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Classic quote from Alfin;
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/04/cane-ethanol-from-brazil-current.html
Quasi-religious thinking lies at the heart of most people’s beliefs about energy, economics, society, politics, and life in general. Even atheists unwittingly tread the same quasi-religious thought pathways and processes that the most devout believers walk. But don’t tell them. They might burn you at the stake.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
J Carlton said:
That’s just about the size of it.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
In response to post#58:
Yes, a SLEV or ULEV car (super low emissions as certified by CARB) actually has cleaner exhaust (regarding volatile HCs, CO and NOx) than the air that goes into the air filter under some circumstances, like a summer day in LA. That stuff is actually my area of expertise.
However, in Germany about 50% of cars are diesels. Diesels produce more particulate pullution, especially large trucks, locomotives and ships. Not so much small diesels in cars. The sum of all those diesel cars in Germany however produce less particulate pollution than the coal plants. Info on how dirty those really are is very carefully kept out of the public debate by the mostly leftist/green leaning press, because it would demonstrate how insane the current German energy policy is.
The utilities however are presented as the bad guy because they charge (rightly so) a fee for transporting wind energy. By law they are requried to accept ALL wind produced energy, wether they can use/sell it or not, and pay the providers almost retail rate for every kWh. By law they are also tasked with grid stability. Which means they have to pay for the backup/maintenance costs to idle the much larger required spinning reserves.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
J Carlton said:
Definately the way it is. I personally don’t claim to be 100% objective or free of emotion or attachment to certain things or general bias at times. I don’t pretend to lack anger/outrage/affinity/attachment/discomfort with certain things.
I generally think it’s a mistake to claim to be 100% objective or to say that you don’t occasionally end up holding onto things too strongly or getting into denial or something similar.
All I say is that I try to avoid it and I try to be logical and objective and avoid dogma or irrational excuses and beliefs. I think I do a fair job at it, but I’m not about to claim 100% success at it or of being Vulcan or an android.
Much as I value objective and rational thought, I think one of the biggest mistakes made is claiming that one can always be rational and objective. That is not part of the human condition. The only way to keep bias from becoming a big problem is to first admit it exists and accept that you might fall for it from time to time.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Good advice to any. Claiming to be 100% objective and logical is not only untrue, but it’s dangerous as it creates thinking you are always right even when it is later apparent you’re not.
I don’t claim to be objective and see the world as it is without bias. I only claim that I try to as much as I can.
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Yes, but back arguments with logical analysis and not appeal to emotion. It is a balance.
Quote Comment
April 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
John A. said:
Let me show you something. Look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Völkerschlachtdenkmal_Leipzig.JPG
Do you see that this building has a much lighter color in the top part? Well, this is not by design; a few years ealier it looked like this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Battle_Of_The_Nations-Monument.jpg
The black coating is not paint, it is a residue from the burning of carbon-based energy carriers called soot. This soot formed from 40 years of homes and businesses generating their own heating energy in a distributed fashion. The energy carrier of choice was lignite, but biomass would have had quite the same effect. Lignite is just old biomass, after all.
Quote Comment
April 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The use of wood stoves in Canada is growing as homeowners switch from costly natural gas. Wood smoke is now the largest single factor behind the emergence of winter smog in many Canadian cities and is one of the biggest contributors of other toxic emissions like volatile organic compounds, according to Environment Canada.
Ironically, some of the worst-hit areas of the country are in the pristine, remote B.C. interior, where steep mountains can trap thick smog over villages nestled in the valleys below. In 2006, the ski-resort town of Golden banned the installation of new wood stoves after recording some of the worst pollution in the province. In the logging town of Houston, an even harsher bylaw requires all wood stoves to be dismantled by 2010.
Nothing better for the environment than folks making heat from natural, renewable sources I always say.
Quote Comment
April 13th, 2008 at 12:31 am
If you want a good example of how bad “natural distributed” energy can be Dublin, Ireland is the perfect example. Traditionally one of the main methods of heating has been coal burning. It had been in decline for years however, but in the 1980’s it made a big comeback when energy prices rose and taxes were increased on oil. There was a noticable increase in smog and respiratory illness (although Dublin had always had a coal smog problem.. it got even worse)
Coal was banned from being burned in the city of Dublin in 1990. The effect on health was dramatic and clear cut: There was a reduction in deaths from acute respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. The reductions of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths are 15.5 and 10.2% respectively. This totals about 360 less deaths per year. Obviously in a closed population where this occurs suddenly it is very statistically significant.
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/
Studies have confirmed the link between the reduction in coal burning and the reduction in mortality. It has been found to directly correspond to the proportion of “black smog” – which is down in the Dublin area by 70% It is not coincidental. Research has found the cause is almost certainly the simple fact that coal was banned.
There has also been an extreme reduction in non-trauma visits to hospitals in general, mostly attributable to reduced heart respiratory and general health problems. This has been so large that hospitals have transfered staff to other areas of the country or found they did not need as many doctors on call.
http://www.irishhealth.com/?id=4323&level=4
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press10172002.html
Quote Comment
April 13th, 2008 at 12:38 am
DV82XL said:
One other thing: I really do not want wood burning stoves to go away! This is an example of how misguided energy policy can be. “we tried to stop [people from using oil and now we’ve got a wood burning problem! I guess we better burn wood stoves.”
I happen to like a wood fire to kick my feet up near after a long day skiing. I also happen to like some good smoky BBQ, slow cooked meats on a hickory fire. I also like being able to have traditions like a fire when the family is around for Christmas eve and to let kids roast marshmallows on the open fire. During the holidays nothing sets the spirit like a fragment roaring fire. In Ireland, a smoldering peat fire is really great on a cold rainy nite when having a traditional dinner. Peat actually has a nice fragrance when it burns slowly.
The problem is NOT that people use wood burning stoves or that they have them. The problem is when they are relied on as a primary source of heating and not simply for occasional get togeathers or for everyone to gather around at the ski lodge If everyone used wood burning stoves for that kind of thing or for when the power goes out and such it would not produce enough pollution to be concerned about.
You don’t want to outlaw wood burning! You simply want to have an energy policy where people are not forced or encouraged to use wood burning as a major source of energy. If it was not economically beneficial to burn wood people would stop doing it as a regular activity and start only doing it on occasion and you would not have to tear all the stoves out of the ski lodges!
Quote Comment
April 13th, 2008 at 1:17 am
drbuzz0 said:
I agree, but the Law is blind, it would be hard to administer except by issuing fire permits (like my town does for outdoor open flame fires) and that would be drag.
Quote Comment
April 13th, 2008 at 1:54 am
DV82XL said:
Right, but as I pointed out: You do not need to have any law pertaining to wood burning stoves to restrict their emissions. If you provide an alternative method of heating which has equal or greater economic and practical value then people will stop using wood as a primary fuel without having to be forced into it.
Nobody burns wood because they enjoy chopping down trees. They burn it for two reasons: 1) it’s cheaper, more avaliable or more suited for their heating needs 2) They like a nice wood fire at the ski lodge.
Reason number 1 is really the problem. You don’t need to legislate it away. Reason 2 doesn’t cause much harm.
Quote Comment
April 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Question: question 12 in “Thinking Physics” – page 259
Inside a warm damp cave completely sealed off from the outside world could life flourish indefinitely?
Answer: No life forms could flourish indefinitely. In an isolated system, entropy always increases. Life tries to push entropy in the opposite direction. When life is created, entropy decreases in the cave but nature demands a greater entropy increase offset. The cave, being sealed, would mean that entropy would reach its max, thus energy necessary to sustain and generate new life would be unavailable. Maybe we should learn a lesson from this. Available energy is mandatory. Wealth may equate to available energy. If you want to live in a nation that is prospering make sure that its available energy supply is abundant.
Entropy is one of “Physics Foibles”. Look it up.
Quote Comment