Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Nuclear or Renewables?

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Would you adjust your lifestyle and embrace a shift to renewables or more nuclear power

Yes
44
71%
No
18
29%
 
Total votes : 62

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Doly » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 05:13:42

Ibon wrote:I'm off topic with continuing the theme about population but there is an interesting new post on this website that makes a start at correlating global population growth with the effects of peak oil if anyone is interested: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12 ... /0641#more


Interesting. I find particularly interesting the graph of fertility vs GDP, particularly the countries that are far from the line. It supports the theory that I've heard before that fertility is correlated more with the level of education of women than GDP (GDP and education is usually correlated, anyway). The countries with high GDP and high fertility are Muslim countries where women are often kept illiterate. The countries with low GDP and relatively low fertility are places such as Cuba and India.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Daryl » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 08:22:18

Ibon wrote:[ But we need a cultural shift to allow these solutions to fully get the priority that this emergency requires. My main interest is focussing on the catalysts that can speed up cultural change toward a sustainable paradigm. Events that can speed up a collective understanding. The faster we get economic disruption the better in my opinion. The quicker we see more severe effects of global warming the better. The quicker we start on the decline of our oil reserves the better. We need catalysts to get the process moving.


We're in complete agreement then. There is no doubt that substantial movement toward the needed adjustments can't take place until a crisis scares the public into acquiesence. Unfortunately, public resistance to sacrifice isn't the only mountain to climb. Beyond that there is the political question ie. will fixed interests cause the irrational decisions to be made? This is especially important because we may not have the time to survive a major mistake. Finally, there is a significant financial issue ie can we fund such huge changes to our infrastructure?

Responsible citizens of this country should be looking to support and join advocacy groups promoting "energy security". This will be the core propaganda used to the scare the average voter into submission. The politicians have already started the drumbeat. At a minimum, we should be pushing Washington to raise the gas tax, a no brainer that would have multiple positive effects pre-peak.

It's not responsible to promote the idea that nothing can be done. It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom. Even Kunstler ends some of his speeches with an exhortation to rebuild the countries railroads. Doomers can argue until they are blue in the face that a solution isn't impossible. But is giving up ethical?
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:25:11

Daryl wrote:It's not responsible to promote the idea that nothing can be done. It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom. Even Kunstler ends some of his speeches with an exhortation to rebuild the countries railroads. Doomers can argue until they are blue in the face that a solution isn't impossible. But is giving up ethical?


I haven't seen very many advocate "giving up." I don't advocate "giving up" except in my darker moments, otherwise, I am full of enthusiasm for solutions which can be implemented immediately.
Ludi
 

Re: Yes to both

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:28:57

MonteQuest wrote:You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.


I'm not sure I understand the difference. I am thinking 18th century technology levels, without modern sanitation, hi-tech health care, etc. Life was hard, and short.

MonteQuest wrote:If we are in overshoot, which all the signs and studies says we are, then the population will crash. If not now, then later. If later, then it will be worse. Energy alone cannot expand carrying capacity in a world governed by the "law of the minimum." It tells us that the carrying capacity for any given species is set by the necessity in least supply.


So if that necessity is not energy, but something else, then you're right. Well, except that the something else has to be something you can't get more of with more energy. As for "crash", it depends on your definition. Hitting an energy wall could result in a hard crash with lots of people dying to reduce the population over a very short time period. I'd rather delay such an event if possible; given a few hundred years the population could be managed down to something sustainable. So even a temporary energy fix of sufficient longevity could avoid what I would consider a crash.

MonteQuest wrote:Can we manage a fully artifical environment? That is awfully thin ice.


Anything not prohibited by the laws of physics is possible. That said, we have a long way to go before we can presume to know as much about nano-scale processes and life processes as mother nature; I sure wouldn't want to bet the ranch on this. Plus, it doesn't sound desirable. The Earth is beautiful - I like her the way she is.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:29:53

Daryl wrote:It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom.


Actually I don't mind that doomers run away. Living on a farm is a noble lifestyle and presumably your footprint is noticeably smaller than the rest of us. That's a good thing. I also don't mind them running away because it removes their negative energy from the forum of discussion. Those of us who want to actually work hard on the problem will have enough to do without diverting energy arguing with those who say it is futile.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:31:06

DoctorDoom, why would be have to do without sanitation and germ theory?
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:40:02

FatherOfTwo wrote:
Daryl wrote:It is not responsible to run away and hide on a farm, leaving everyone else to their doom.


Actually I don't mind that doomers run away. Living on a farm is a noble lifestyle and presumably your footprint is noticeably smaller than the rest of us. That's a good thing. I also don't mind them running away because it removes their negative energy from the forum of discussion. Those of us who want to actually work hard on the problem will have enough to do without diverting energy arguing with those who say it is futile.


I'm wondering why living on a farm is seen as "running away."
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:41:00

Ludi wrote:I'm wondering why living on a farm is seen as "running away."


If you hate city life and want something different, it isn't running away.
If you hate the current culture, it isn't running away.
But if you've been scared silly about Peak Oil, have bought a bunch of guns, some land and refuse to listen to arguments that you might be jumping the gun just a bit, then I think that qualifies as running away.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:47:03

Ludi wrote:DoctorDoom, why would be have to do without sanitation and germ theory?


Largely unsung, modern sanitation may be the single biggest technological advance of the 20th century, in terms of its impact on people's quality of life and longevity. It means running water which means energy used to pump it in most cases. Hi-tech health care means lots of disposable stuff made from plastics, machines that need energy to make and to run, drugs that need chemical feedstocks and/or energy to produce, etc., etc.

Yeah, if we were b!tch-slapped back to the 18th century and we managed to not lose our knowledge base, we'd be better off than the people that lived back then, but there'd have to be a lot fewer of us ('cause cities like today's New York would not be possible), and we'd have to accept more deaths from illnesses that used to be treatable in era of high technology.

I guess that's a problem with MQ's original question, it doesn't specify exactly how much of a lifestyle change we're talking about.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:54:56

Ok, FoT, I don't know of anyone who fits that category. Most of us on the Planning forum who live in the country have been there for some time, because we want that life. Can't speak for those who don't want to live in the country but are just moving to escape the cities of doom. Sounds like a super bad idea to me, what if doom doesn't occur anytime soon, and one finds that country life really sucks (as it does for many city people)?
Ludi
 

Re: Yes to both

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:58:27

DoctorDoom wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.


I'm not sure I understand the difference. I am thinking 18th century technology levels, without modern sanitation, hi-tech health care, etc. Life was hard, and short.


This is a classical example of trying to have it both ways.
How is our consumption level going to drop and our quality of life going to rise if we've followed up the shock of peak oil with a deliberate heart attack by refusing to soften the blow (ie. No nuclear.) I find it very amusing that our quality of life is projected to rise when the economy has been shattered, there are gobs on unemployed and seriously pissed off people, where tensions are manifesting themselves as crime and conflict. It’s so detached from reality.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 12:59:22

I should think running water would be seen as an absolute necessity and kept, while improving in efficiency. Sewage can be dealt with in a variety of ways which are more suitable to preserving the biosystems than current methods. There's no much literature out there about these issues, this isn't a mysterious area.
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 13:04:42

FoT, my household uses less than 1/3 the resources of the average North American household, with no loss in quality of life. I don't think this is unreasonable, I think this is very possible.
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 13:11:33

Ludi wrote:FoT, my household uses less than 1/3 the resources of the average North American household, with no loss in quality of life. I don't think this is unreasonable, I think this is very possible.


Sure, it's theoretically possible. But getting from here to there isn't easy. Rapid drops in the standard of living are not conducive conditions to achieving such an end state.

Why aren't conditions getting better in Iraq?
Why did conditions deteriorate to such a bad level in New Orleans?

These may be extreme examples, but they are perfect case studies of how badly we react when stressed.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 13:42:17

FoT, it isn't "theoretically possible" if people are actually doing it, which they are. It's actually possible.
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 13:50:56

Ludi wrote:FoT, it isn't "theoretically possible" if people are actually doing it, which they are. It's actually possible.


:roll: You're right, we'll all easily cut 2/3 of our consumption without any problems or negative consequences. My bad, how silly of me.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 15:51:46

FatherOfTwo wrote:
Ludi wrote:FoT, it isn't "theoretically possible" if people are actually doing it, which they are. It's actually possible.


:roll: You're right, we'll all easily cut 2/3 of our consumption without any problems or negative consequences. My bad, how silly of me.


Well, that's leaping to conclusions. I don't understand the way you think FoT. How you get "there will be no problems" from "it's actually possible" I don't know.
Ludi
 

Re: Nuclear or Renewables?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 11:34:22

MonteQuest wrote:Nuclear power production is a big dog, but it has a history of being stillborn and is still fraught with problems, real or imagined.

Given the choice, would you adjust your lifestyle and embrace a shift to renewables over building more nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs?

Are we as a society willing to cope and adapt to a changing energy environment brought about by a myopic dismissal of the reality of living in a finite world and refusing to prepare for it?

Or must we let the nuclear genie haunt us for all time so we can maintain the status quo or give us the dubious power to transition to renewables with just a blip on the radar?

If we go the nuclear route, will it ensure we will transition to renewables?

We transitioned to coal and we didn't develop renewables. We transitioned to oil and we didn't develop renewables.

Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?

The biggest problem with this mindset is that it has no recognized ecological "limits", which solar, biomass, wind, tidal, etc, do.

The received solar flux will set the supply, not demand.


I am curious how the membership may have shifted around here. If you were voting on this issue today, knowing exactly what you know right now, how would you vote?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Nuclear or Renewables?

Unread postby GHung » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 12:22:32

Tanada wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Nuclear power production is a big dog, but it has a history of being stillborn and is still fraught with problems, real or imagined.

Given the choice, would you adjust your lifestyle and embrace a shift to renewables over building more nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs?

Are we as a society willing to cope and adapt to a changing energy environment brought about by a myopic dismissal of the reality of living in a finite world and refusing to prepare for it?

Or must we let the nuclear genie haunt us for all time so we can maintain the status quo or give us the dubious power to transition to renewables with just a blip on the radar?

If we go the nuclear route, will it ensure we will transition to renewables?

We transitioned to coal and we didn't develop renewables. We transitioned to oil and we didn't develop renewables.

Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?

The biggest problem with this mindset is that it has no recognized ecological "limits", which solar, biomass, wind, tidal, etc, do.

The received solar flux will set the supply, not demand.


I am curious how the membership may have shifted around here. If you were voting on this issue today, knowing exactly what you know right now, how would you vote?


I voted 20 years ago when I decided to reduce dependence on non-'renewables' and go solar as much as possible. What do I think since then? We still have made little progress on dealing with nuclear wastes other than stuffing them into giant cans of stainless and concrete, and the ongoing debacle of trying to build the first new US reactors in decades (Plant Vogtle) speaks for itself. Little has happened to change my mind. Meanwhile, existing reactors that are well past their pull-by date continue to be re-certified. My nuclear power training leads me to determine that that isn't such a good idea. God help our children who will have to clean up this mess, or live with the consequences. They'll have every right to blame their can-kicking parents.

While I've never been an either/or kind of person, and I think sensible nuclear providing a base for more renewables could be a solution, after 20 years, I stand fast on my decisions. Life has been good off-grid, we have taken very little in tax incentives, and I see no reason to stop questioning WTF the rest of you are doing. If the goal is to produce evermore energy for an evermore wasteful and destructive society, count me out.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Nuclear or Renewables?

Unread postby Paulo1 » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 12:47:24

Well,

I live in BC where our electricity is totally renewable (Hydro), and is generated in surplus to our needs; often sold to US grid customers, or turned off and stored as potential in resevoirs.

I vote for conservation as much as possible, and have voted with our pocketbook and work focus a long time ago. Our house is super-insulated, designed to face south for passive solar (when the sun shines), has copious cross-ventilation for summer cooling, and we heat with wood. Our electricity costs average $50/month, unless I am working a great deal in the shop welding, or using power woodworking tools. Nukes for base load? NO....mostly because of storage and waste disposal issues. We would simply power down and re-tool into solar.

I have almost finished building a small 640 sq. ft house for a rental. I have a long-time friend (senior citizen) who will rent it from me for $300/month. When his declining health one day forces him to leave it will be rented for $800/month in today's dollars. The home is a beautiful little cottage designed for energy conservation and a low-cost lifestyle. It is 'open' with vaulted ceilings (10'), LED lighting, R-20 walls....R-30 attic, etc. All cabinets are restored from Habitat and rebuilt...windows are also all double paned from Habitat. Total cost of windows and cabinets approx. $300, but I do have the shop and materials to re-build them. I have also installed 200 amp service for future considerations, simply because I had to buy a pole and transformer, etc. The supply service is underground. It has a backup heating source of in-wall fan driven electric heaters, but mostly relys on a new woodstove for heat. Not including my labour, total materials from site prep to finish will be apporox $35,000 cdn. It is built and wired to code or above. A new single-wide mobile home is $100,000 these days, and this has the same square footage and is a cosy little home. It has been a very fun project.

No to nukes for sure. I would go for NG before nukes.

regards
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 15:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests