Interesting Statistics from an interesting discussion.

[brobak]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Found that site this morning while having a discussion with a friend of mine on the ramifications of increased energy costs. Basically, he's a non believer, stating that the vast cost of nuclear power plants is found in government regulations which could and would be lifted in the event that things got really bad. He contends that plants could be created for less than 20% of their current costs, and in less than 1/5th the amount of time.

He agree's that it would take something "very bad" to affect Joe American before we could start the process, and says also that the lag would be 15-20 years to convert, but that once the process got rolling, whole new industries would be created, helping to soften the blow of the flip. Also, because oil wouldnt suddenly dissappear, the affects would be softened even more.

He gave me that site at the top as a backup to his arguement.

At the end, we both agree'd that a shortage of cheap energy would cause issues. He just feels that there are far too many variables in the world to be able to make any kind of judgement one way or the other. I reffered him to some of the peak oil primers, and left him on his own. We'll have to see if he changes his mind in the future, or if some world event might convince him of my viewpoint.

[MicroHydro]

Why nuclear power is not a solution

[ArimoDave]

By John Busby

Although not every scientist agrees, emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, mostly petroleum, natural gas and coal are considered to be a major factor in causing the onset of global warming. Unacceptable rises in temperature are leading to rising sea levels from the melting of polar ice and corresponding climate changes may affect plant and animal life in otherwise temperate zones.

From the link "Why Nuclear power is not a solution"

Here's some thoughts: Why are we so worried about global warming due to CO2 emmisions?

Where did all the carbon contained in oil,(etc.) come from in the first place?

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, wasn't the earth likely a warmer place due to more CO2.

Ice caps are one thing, but why arn't we worried about the excess water created when all that H in oil is burned?

Maybe, our purpose on this planet is to bring the earth back to its original temperature and liquid water level.

I hope it isn't. But. the evidence sure is pointing this way.

Another idea is that the earth's mean temperature is supposed to fluctuate like many other natural phenomenon.

I have no answers yet. I can only look at the evidence and see where it leads, or seems to lead.

[Ludi]

Sure, it's "supposed" to (or rather does) fluctuate based on natural occurances such as volcanic activity and meteor strikes. The activity of so-called intelligent apes probably does fall under the category of "natural occurances" but the apes have the supposed advantage of being able to see the effects of their actions and change their behavior in their own best interests. The last major climate change occured before there was civilization. Minor climate changes since then have brought wide-scale famine.

[gg3]

A climate fit for dinosaurs probably isn't fit for human civilizations.

ArimoDave, do you want to be a guinea-pig in an irreversible experiment?

[aahala]

Let's see the hands of those who want to build new nuclear power
plants?

Now let's see the hands of those of you want them built in their
community?

Finally, let's see the hands of those who want the nuclear waste
stored in the vacant lot down the street from their home, school
or place of employment?

There's a good number of volunteers to store it, as long as it's somewhere
else and transporting the material doesn't go thru their own town.

[PhilBiker]

Let's see the hands of those who want to build new nuclear power
plants?

Now let's see the hands of those of you want them built in their
community?

Finally, let's see the hands of those who want the nuclear waste
stored in the vacant lot down the street from their home, school
or place of employment?

There's a good number of volunteers to store it, as long as it's somewhere
else and transporting the material doesn't go thru their own town.

My hand was up all three times (assuming the casks for the waste storage are appropriately designed).

How about the hands of the people who are willing to go hungry because their food spoils, freeze to death with no heat in the winter, live without water treatment, have no communications other than occasional letter mail, and not be able to use heat for cooking so eat their food raw.

Microhydro, your "Why nuclear power is not a solution" link is interesting, and a great resource for "first stage peak oil denail" when we're trying to convince ourselves that there are alternatives that will allow us to continue the status quo. As such, it's a great link for this particular discussion. However, it only addresses why nuclear energy can not replace oil in an ever increasing energy-use scenario. If you assume the nuclear role in a significantly lower energy future, many of the cases it makes are not as compelling.

[Devil]

All three of my hands are up as well!

I lived in Switzerland for 35 years. All 5 nuclear power stations there are quite close to cities and all of them have stocks of fresh and spent fuel. There has never been any problem. The waste is sent to a place called Wuerenlingen, where it is deposited for the required 40 minimum years before being sent for disposal (in a place very close to the city of Schaffhausen, the state capital of the canton of the same name). The spent fuel is sent to France for recycling; 96% of it comes back for reuse, the other 4%, being medium level waste, is added to the waste for Wuerenlingen.

Believe me, I'd much rather live next door to Goesgen or Leibstadt with all that radioactivity, than I would downstream from the Grande Dixence, Hongrin, Rawyl or other major hydroelectric dams. There are far more people killed from HE sites than from nuclear sites, worldwide (estimate ~250,000 in last 50 years). God forbid, if the Three Gorges burst for any reason, after it fills to capacity, the death toll will be greater than Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl combined.

[pstarr]

Here we go again. Around, and around, and around, and around. I think the point the poster was making is that his friend believes that cheap nuclear will save us post peak. His friends asserts:

that plants could be created for less than 20% of their current costs, and in less than 1/5th the amount of time.

Does anyone see anyone rushing out to build these plants. By the time they do, will oil still be cheap enough to build the plants for any percentage of their current cost?

Then Devil and Philbike assert Switzerland (the former) and death by freezing (the latter) as proof that the USA can go nuklear and save the day. I recollect data repeatedly cast on this site (peakoil) demonstrating that we would need to build a plant every x days for the next x years to replace oil with nuklear. There is no time, political will, or energy to do so.

(assuming the casks for the waste storage are appropriately designed).

And if we completed this monstrous project where would we get the energy to drag these 100 ton nuklear coffins around. Nuklear? Come on. I just don’t see a Prius hauling nuklear wastes.

Brobak, you friend has a name around here. He is a cornicopian.

[PhilBiker]

Then Devil and Philbike assert Switzerland (the former) and death by freezing (the latter) as proof that the USA can go nuklear and save the day.

Neither of us made any pretentions to nuclear energy "saving the day". We simply see it as a critical future energy source. I even agreed that it is specifically not a panacea that can allow us to continue our energy wasting ways. However, it will be a critical energy technology moving forward and transitioning to a lower energy future.

[MicroHydro]

Agree with PhilBiker.

While there simply isn't enough uranium ore available with a positive EROEI to fuel the current world economy, some nuclear plants could be useful.

If nuclear electricity was used to power electric rail service while producing wind turbines, for example, that would ease the transition to a lower per capita energy consumption world.

The nuclear waste "problem" is a bogus political issue. It is easy to package the waste in a form where it is less radioactive than the uranium ore it was mined out of.

[thegrq]

Here's some thoughts: Why are we so worried about global warming due to CO2 emmisions?

Where did all the carbon contained in oil,(etc.) come from in the first place?

We're worried because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have never been at higher levels (at least not since before the ice age 310,000 years ago), they're at 378ppm right now. How can people justify digging up oil, which took tens of thousands of years to make from organic (carbon containing matter) such as plants and animals, and then splurting tens of thousands of years worth of stored up carbon over a period of 200 years? The carbon balance just doesn't work out.

Biofuels on the other hand are made from organic compounds which remove CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow and so when you burn biofuel, the carbon cycle is neutral (assuming you grow the crop again which will remove the same amount of CO2 that was emitted by the biofuel). The one problem with biofuels is that it does remove nitrates from the soil and so you can't go on growing crops indefinitely.

[PhilBiker]

The nuclear waste "problem" is a bogus political issue. It is easy to package the waste in a form where it is less radioactive than the uranium ore it was mined out of.

Furthermore, every time I see a polititian railing against waste being transported through their town I have to chuckle. How many people are railing against the orders of magnitude more radioactive replacement fuel being transportet to the power plants?

[mizzou]

My hand went up all 3 times also. In fact, I presently live less than 10 miles from 2 nuclear power plants at Indian Point, NY. They are located on the east side of the Hudson river. Directly across the Hudson on the west side (where I live), we have 3 coal fired electric plants. Just when we need electricity from coal and nuclear, all 5 of these plants are being threatened with closing. The coal plants are owned by Mirant which is currently in bankruptcy and NY state is demanding that they be retrofitted with clean burning technology. Costs are supposedly $1 billion for each plant. The nuclear plants at Indian Point are constantly being threatened by the environmentalists and since 9/11, there is more wide spread support to close Indian Point. I'm one of the few people who want it to stay open. Everybody wants natural gas powered electricity. As we all know on this forum, that is idiotic. Without electricity, surviving peak oil will be extremely difficult.