[Devil]

If we go the nuclear fission route, we'll be in uranium peak in 10 years.

It's clearly time for you to do some serious reading instead of typing pure bullshit about a subject which you are totally ignorant of.

[EnergySpin]

If we go the nuclear fission route, we'll be in uranium peak in 10 years.

It's clearly time for you to do some serious reading instead of typing pure bullshit about a subject which you are totally ignorant of.

Actually it is not his fault Devil ... funzone started anti-nuclear a few days ago, then we showed him the facts and then someone decided to (mis-)inform him about the crap propagated by the duo (it is the duo, he said it in a different thread).
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of searching to debunk 1 by 1 the idiocies found in that particular paper (and one does not need to take WNA word for it). I fully expect more propaganda of that short to be spilled over the media by misguided greenies . Unfortunately the big environmental groups (Greenpeace) are not just misguided; they are using the "anti-nuclear" mantra to stay current/relevant and keep the subscriptions/donations coming. I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I simply do not care . In any case ... this winter is going to talk sense to people in the UK and US.

[IslandCrow]

It's all very well and good supporting renewables, but realistically, how many people would powerdown to the levels needed to use only renewables? Very, very few.

I have seriously considered this, but I am sure my wife would not agree. It would have involved buying farm land, and building a small cottage that could be easily heated with wood (and some solar panels). The style of life is quite different from living in a city appartment, where we have been for over 10 years. Instead I have settled for a rural-village compromise that will involve powering down, but not enough to say we could get by without nuclear power, although I hope with the addition of a wood burning range we could survive without electricity in times of crisis.

So for this and other reasons (such as losing my job and income) I am not one of the "very, very few"

[Devil]

And, if everyone did the rural cottage theme with enough woodland to provide their energy needs:
a) there would not be enough land
b) the rural real estate prices would rise to ginormous heights
c) no mortgages would be available as no one could get into towns where the lenders' offices are, because the roads would be blocked by the millions of commuter currently living in apartments within walking distance of their work.

[Ibon]

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 mentioned on the Cornucopia thread that we would have to re-engineer our collective heads to achieve a sustainable balance with the planet. The choice to forego nuclear and "choose" re-newables would mean that we are limiting ourselves to a set supply of energy as received by solar flux. How is it practical or realistic to expect mankind to make this enlightened choice up front? We wont. This whole debate over nuclear or renewables is not about an energy choice. It is about choosing between sustainability and growth. So nuclear energy will allow us to avoid hitting the natural limits that peak oil presented mankind? So if we can’t rely on limited energy to impose limits on our growth than we have to fall back on natural disasters, global warming or disease? It seems we are always counting on some external force to modify our behaviour. That is by the way how nature has always worked. Nuclear allows us to continue to live on borrowed time until we willfully, of our own volition, through our own self devised design, limit ourselves to a sustainable paradigm. Can we do it?

[cube]

Your poll is silly. You have 2 options, one OR the other.

This isn't a Chinese restaurant with 100 items on the menu. Sometimes in life you get stuck between a rock and a hard place and really do NOT have that many choices. I believe the coming world energy crises will be one such example. Okay maybe there's actually more then 2 options. However, I firmly believe as far as energy goes humanity really doesn't have that many choices...you can probably count all of them on one hand.

As far as the first part of the question : "Would you adjust your lifestyle..." the answer for 90% of the human race would be NO. Humans do not voluntarily accept a lower standard of living.

[Ibon]

This poll simply makes no sense.
People need to make the distinction between their own socio-political agenda ("we cannot continue business as usual etc") and sound engineering factors.
We need both renewables+nukes .... My rationale was detailed in a post in another thread: http://peakoil.com/post229670.html#229670

I have a sincere question for you. You promote nuclear with some sound arguments when you point out the threat of global warming. We got this global warming not because of the carbon immisions inherant in fossil fuels but because we allowed ourselves to exploit these fossil fuels to the point where we have thrown the carbon cycle out of balance with wasteful unrestrained growth. There is nothing inherantly wrong with burning fossil fuels, only in the scale that we grew with them.

Question: How can you justify nuclear on environmental grounds if the unrestrained growth that it will allow will exasperate ecological imbalances if it permits unrestrained growth. How does ramping up nuclear address the real problem of our culture exploiting energy that disregards natural ecological balances? With nuclear wont we grow and strain the environment in unforeseen ways that will create other imbalances similar to GW. And I don't mean that nuclear itself is dirty, but the unrestrained growth that it will continue to allow will make it an indirect source of unsustainable future imbalances.

You said I may by myopic in my view of technology and the status quo and sustainabiliy. Maybe that's true. I invite you therefore to present me with your vision of the brave new world where nuclear takes us on the path of transforming to a sustainable paradigm.

[gnm]

BOTH - I have already embraced renewables and I know their limitations.

How do you expect to make solar panels (aluminum frames, highly refined Si ingots etc) using renewables? I mean, Aluminum smelting uses an obscene amount of power!

Wind has the best immediate return, and solar thermal is pretty effective as well. All will need to be used.

I am also one of the ones who thinks Fission might give us enough time to transition to Fusion.

Or we can just give up and go back to our caves after 5.5 billion die right?

-G

[EnergySpin]

the carbon immisions inherant in fossil fuels but because we allowed ourselves to exploit these fossil fuels to the point where we have thrown the carbon cycle out of balance with wasteful unrestrained growth. There is nothing inherantly wrong with burning fossil fuels, only in the scale that we grew with them.

This is not 100% correct; even a small coal fired plant will cause environmental and health problems (asthma, COPD etc). Maybe we would not have to deal with CC but there are other disadvantages of FF that are not related to the scale they are deployed. But this is just nitpicking

Question: How can you justify nuclear on environmental grounds if the unrestrained growth that is will allow will exasperate ecological imbalances if it permits unrestrained growth. How does ramping up nuclear address the real problem of our culture exploiting energy that disregards natural ecological balances?

One needs to distinguish between un-related objects. For example I cannot understand the position that nuclear will lead to a culture which disregards natural ecological balances. Plentiful energy could mean=> food production takes places in greehouses => decrease in the area of land we cultivate=>more land for "nature". And since the technology makes use of a fuel that does not compete with other beings it is not likely to create any ecological balances. I do have to point out that there are certain bacteria that oxidize uranium, but do not worry: even if we could chew all the uranium present in this planet they would not starve
As with any other technology it is the human user and not the technology per se that determines the cultural paradimg of its use.
One could take your position to the extreme and argue that sicne fire may destroy forests, we should do away with matches, lighters etc. This makes no sense IMHO.

With nuclear wont we grow and strain the environment in unforeseen ways that will create other imbalances similar to GW. And I don't mean that nuclear itself is dirty, but the unrestrained growth that it will continue to allow will make it an indirect source of unsustainable future imbalances.

The technology and the culture of the user of technology are orthogonal issues in almost all examples I can think of. Your argument would be valid if nuclear was created with the sole intention to destroy the environment (which is not the case). Of course nuclear weapons are created for a destructive purpose and hence are "unethical".

You said I may by myopic in my view of technology and the status quo and sustainabiliy. Maybe that's true. I invite you therefore to present me with your vision of the brave new world where nuclear takes us on the path of transforming to a sustainable paradigm.

Ibon I'm sorry but your last question does not make a lot of sense .
A society that has nuclear power stations may decide to go for an unsustainable way of life or a sustainable one. I have made it clear in more than one occasions that I consider consumerism a lethal fad. But I'm not that misguided in thinking that I have to do away with all forms of useful energy technology just because they may lead to unsustainable ways of life. Your position is very similar to the position which led to the Prohibition
If you are afraid that access to energy will lead to an unsustainable paradigm then you have to educate people not to use it in such a way.

[funzone36]

For devil and energyspin:

Peak Uranium?

“Three massive claims are being made for Britain building a new generation of nuclear stations: first, it is the only way that Britain can meet its ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions; secondly, it is the only reliable option available if we are to fill the 'energy gap' left by declining sources of fossil fuels; thirdly, it is the best way of ensuring that our energy comes from 'secure' sources, rather than unstable oil-rich oligarchies. These claims are at best specious, at worst untrue. Take carbon emission. There is a blithe notion that nuclear power is 'clean' — it emits no CO² and therefore does not contribute to global warming. This argument has been systematically taken apart over the past five years by two independent experts, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Bartlett Smith, one a chemist and energy specialist, the other a nuclear physicist, who between them have a lifetime ’s experience in the nuclear industry. What they have done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for any nuclear advocate. They say that at the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to reply on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of conventional energy to refine it… At present, about 440 nuclear reactors supply about 2 per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable of democracies. So much for ‘secure’ sources of energy. We would find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the middle of the ore-manufacturing fire.”

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Do ... tm#Uranium

[EnergySpin]

For devil and energyspin:

Peak Uranium?

“Three massive claims are being made for Britain building a new generation of nuclear stations: first, it is the only way that Britain can meet its ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions; secondly, it is the only reliable option available if we are to fill the 'energy gap' left by declining sources of fossil fuels; thirdly, it is the best way of ensuring that our energy comes from 'secure' sources, rather than unstable oil-rich oligarchies. These claims are at best specious, at worst untrue. Take carbon emission. There is a blithe notion that nuclear power is 'clean' — it emits no CO² and therefore does not contribute to global warming. This argument has been systematically taken apart over the past five years by two independent experts, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Bartlett Smith, one a chemist and energy specialist, the other a nuclear physicist, who between them have a lifetime ’s experience in the nuclear industry. What they have done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for any nuclear advocate. They say that at the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to reply on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of conventional energy to refine it… At present, about 440 nuclear reactors supply about 2 per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable of democracies. So much for ‘secure’ sources of energy. We would find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the middle of the ore-manufacturing fire.”

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Do ... tm#Uranium

Work by these authors has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum; we found this work full of many errors both in the numerics and the theoryl). It is just an antinuclear rant. For example the authors made two grave errors in their analysis of the nuclear technology:
1) they have overinflated the energy costs of mining, enrichment, decomissioning to arrive at a rediculous figure concernign the EROIE of nuclear technology. This has been discussed in the Uranium Supply thread more than once.
2) The graph showing the efficiency of uranium extraction from "marginal" ores is the sweetest piece of propaganda and bad science I've seen in my life. They have extrapolated a curve which concerned traditional mining technologies of uranium from solid substrates to liquid media (they wanted to show that uranium mining from seawater was infeasible).
But this is just a lie; we have ion exchange columns today that can leach uranium down to 20 parts per billion over a range of concentrations from 1-1000 ppm. And marginal ores are mined with such methods nowadays (Solution mining/in situ leaching). In addition uranium is so common an element on earth .. that we have plenty of possible mining sites including your backyard

[FatherOfTwo]

This poll simply makes no sense.
People need to make the distinction between their own socio-political agenda ("we cannot continue business as usual etc") and sound engineering factors.
We need both renewables+nukes .... My rationale was detailed in a post in another thread: http://peakoil.com/post229670.html#229670

I have a sincere question for you. You promote nuclear with some sound arguments when you point out the threat of global warming. We got this global warming not because of the carbon immisions inherant in fossil fuels but because we allowed ourselves to exploit these fossil fuels to the point where we have thrown the carbon cycle out of balance with wasteful unrestrained growth. There is nothing inherantly wrong with burning fossil fuels, only in the scale that we grew with them.

Question: How can you justify nuclear on environmental grounds if the unrestrained growth that it will allow will exasperate ecological imbalances if it permits unrestrained growth. How does ramping up nuclear address the real problem of our culture exploiting energy that disregards natural ecological balances? With nuclear wont we grow and strain the environment in unforeseen ways that will create other imbalances similar to GW. And I don't mean that nuclear itself is dirty, but the unrestrained growth that it will continue to allow will make it an indirect source of unsustainable future imbalances.

You said I may by myopic in my view of technology and the status quo and sustainabiliy. Maybe that's true. I invite you therefore to present me with your vision of the brave new world where nuclear takes us on the path of transforming to a sustainable paradigm.

The argument that expanded nuclear power is going to allow unfettered further growth is, IMO, not in any way, shape or form valid. The economic impacts from peak oil will be significant and long lasting as the entire infrastructure needs to undergo a massive transformation. The money for the transformation exists but it'll mean huge sacrifices. We’ll be busy keeping our heads above water.

To me there are two keys which we ignore at our peril.
We must attack global warming. You’re right, fossil fuel use isn’t inherently bad, it’s the way we’ve used it and now we have not only a liquid fuels crisis but what could be an environmental crisis. Two-for-one day! To some extent peaking oil will help with GW, but coal use will be ramped up in the short term. Nuclear is a huge help to global warming and must be embraced with open arms. I really wish the environmentalist groups would take off their blinders and see this!

Surviving the transition. We will have more than our hands full just handling all of the problems that peaking oil presents. Renewable energies are fantastic, and should be rolled out to the greatest extent possible, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves to allow us to survive the transition. It will take decades to roll them out and they are too intermittent for us to (in the short term) realistically rely on them for a large portion of our electrical generation base load. Oh, and let's not forget the elephant standing in the room - societies ability to cope with these changes. With the coming drops in the standard of living we’ll have a hard enough time keeping social order intact – we don’t need to exacerbate things by trying to “fix” things all in one fell swoop.
Bend a stick to far and it'll snap in half.

I do advocate the need to re-examine the way we live our lives and treat this planet. But it must be tempered by the reality on the ground. Let’s take one major earth shaking problem at a time - steady as she goes.

Monte, why are you (cleary) hell bent on maintaining your anti-nuclear bias? I haven't been able to figure this out.
Do you not agree it is better than burning ff in terms of global warming?
Do you not think that the economic impacts from peaking oil are going to be significant? (I know you do). Is it therefore not preferable to minimize the economic impacts, reducing the chances for social chaos?

If so, then why on earth do you insist on bashing nuclear? Why are you not seeing the big picture in this case?

[Ibon]

Question: How can you justify nuclear on environmental grounds if the unrestrained growth that is will allow will exasperate ecological imbalances if it permits unrestrained growth. How does ramping up nuclear address the real problem of our culture exploiting energy that disregards natural ecological balances?

One needs to distinguish between un-related objects. For example I cannot understand the position that nuclear will lead to a culture which disregards natural ecological balances. Plentiful energy could mean=> food production takes places in greehouses => decrease in the area of land we cultivate=>more land for "nature". And since the technology makes use of a fuel that does not compete with other beings it is not likely to create any ecological balances. I do have to point out that there are certain bacteria that oxidize uranium, but do not worry: even if we could chew all the uranium present in this planet they would not starve
As with any other technology it is the human user and not the technology per se that determines the cultural paradimg of its use.
One could take your position to the extreme and argue that sicne fire may destroy forests, we should do away with matches, lighters etc. This makes no sense IMHO.

With nuclear wont we grow and strain the environment in unforeseen ways that will create other imbalances similar to GW. And I don't mean that nuclear itself is dirty, but the unrestrained growth that it will continue to allow will make it an indirect source of unsustainable future imbalances.

The technology and the culture of the user of technology are orthogonal issues in almost all examples I can think of. Your argument would be valid if nuclear was created with the sole intention to destroy the environment (which is not the case). Of course nuclear weapons are created for a destructive purpose and hence are "unethical".

You said I may by myopic in my view of technology and the status quo and sustainabiliy. Maybe that's true. I invite you therefore to present me with your vision of the brave new world where nuclear takes us on the path of transforming to a sustainable paradigm.

Ibon I'm sorry but your last question does not make a lot of sense .
A society that has nuclear power stations may decide to go for an unsustainable way of life or a sustainable one. I have made it clear in more than one occasions that I consider consumerism a lethal fad. But I'm not that misguided in thinking that I have to do away with all forms of useful energy technology just because they may lead to unsustainable ways of life. Your position is very similar to the position which led to the Prohibition
If you are afraid that access to energy will lead to an unsustainable paradigm then you have to educate people not to use it in such a way.

Peak oil is showing us that technology alone is not going to solve the problem now that we have brought our growth to the point where we are creating such massive stress on our environment. I agree with you that we need to separate the energy discussion from the social / economical/ political discussion in terms of analyzing energy sources from the scalability, environmental impacts and feasibility. But we cannot avoid an integrated approach to the solutions that includes the sociopolitical questions. Somewhere this enters the discussion. Let's say we embrace nuclear as a solution. It's advantages are recognized probably by all rational people from the science, scalability and feasibility. But since when are humans rational?

Father or Two wrote:

Oh, and let's not forget the elephant standing in the room - societies ability to cope with these changes. With the coming drops in the standard of living we’ll have a hard enough time keeping social order intact – we don’t need to exacerbate things by trying to “fix” things all in one fell swoop.
Bend a stick to far and it'll snap in half.

In a world where we have a problem keeping social order intact do we really want to promote a technology whose by products can product weapons of such destructive force?

I know that once again I am confusing the issue. It will be up to us humans whether we use the energy in a sustainable useful way or if we use it unsustainably or destructively. Should we use history as a guide to our future behaviour?

If peak oil creates so many hardships as Father of Two suggests and if even with nuclear we will have to do everything to avoid social dislocation then I can imagine the usefullness of nuclear and see that the stresses we are about to face will naturally shift the status quo on its own to a more sustainable paradigm. Perhaps GW and this transition is enough on its own to re-engineer our collective heads in the next few decades. I really don't know.

Like I mentioned previously we have never as a species limited our growth without the help of external limits being imposed on us. If all this hardship and transition only allows us to come out on the other side unchanged so that we can regain our momentum to expand our growth and exploitation of the planet than what have we gained?

Our energy and mobility can one day be engineered with electricity. Nuclear will play a decisive role. Great. Let's go for it.

I have to conclude that it is not confusing the issue when you combine energy strategies with the sociopolitical consequences.

Am I sending mixed messages? I wonder why?

[Ibon]

I do advocate the need to re-examine the way we live our lives and treat this planet. But it must be tempered by the reality on the ground. Let’s take one major earth shaking problem at a time - steady as she goes.

I agree. This is all we can really do. We have this unbelievable abundance around us at this moment that allows us the time to ponder the greater questions along with putting out the immediate fires. I hope that my two daughters will have the same luxury in their future to ask the bigger questions along with dealing with the reality on the ground.

[Ludi]

I calculated to replace our fossil fuel plants in Texas with nukes, we'd need to build 21 new reactors, at least.

Where the heck would we build these, I wonder?

I don't see this happening.

[funzone36]

Energyspin,

1) Then what is the real cost of the nuclear cycle?

2) Although we can extract those less quality ores, they have a negative EPR.

"It is with ores at these grades the energy balance turns against nuclear power. If ores any poorer than this were to be used, while at the same time maintaining proper standards of waste control in all operations, nuclear power production would go into energy deficit: it would be putting more energy into the process than it could extract from it. Its contribution to meeting the world's energy needs would become negative."

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1651.html

[Ibon]

If so, then why on earth do you insist on bashing nuclear? Why are you not seeing the big picture in this case?

I'll answer for myself this question. Is nuclear putting out an immediate fire but planting the seeds of a greater inferno? I don't mean bombs here either.

Nuclear is an energy we can harnass that supplements the energy alreadly falling on the planet from solar flux. Fossil fuels did basically the same thing in that we pulled out of the ground stored solar energy like a battery to supplement the total available energy during the past 150 years. This supplemental energy permits us humans to develop societies that live beyond their carrying capacities since we don't know how to manage or design on our own limits to our growth. This is the bigger picture Father of Two and inherant in the nuclear solution are the seeds of this greater inferno. Using renewable energy sources forces us to live within the sustainable amount of energy that falls on the planet and avoids these imbalances.

Environmentalists and ecologists do not trust energy sources that add supplemental energy to human endeavours since humans act like all other critters and just multiply using this supplemental energy.

That is another reason by the way why we cant separate energy strategies from socio/political/religious/cultural stuff. We do so at our peril since we aren't capable to organize ourselves with a self imposed limits to our growth. At least until now.

[Ludi]

This is the bigger picture Father of Two and inherant in the nuclear solution are the seeds of this greater inferno. Using renewable energy sources forces us to live within the sustainable amount of energy that falls on the planet and avoids these imbalances.

Environmentalists and ecologists do not trust energy sources that add supplemental energy to human endeavours since humans act like all other critters and just multiply using this supplemental energy.

That is another reason by the way why we cant separate energy strategies from socio/political/religious/cultural stuff. We do so at our peril since we aren't capable to organize ourselves with a self imposed limits to our growth. At least until now.

This is one of the main reasons I don't support nukes. ( Not that my support or lack of it will have any effect on whether they get built, or not)

How do the nuke boosters address the overshoot problem?

[whereagles]

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

Fusion is infinite energy relative to our lifetimes.

Therein lies the problem.

It will allow us to continue to ignore the ecological limits.

Fusion Power; Blessing or Curse
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2133.html

Well, if somehow we could replace oil right now with something as convenient and dense, but inexaustable and non-polluting, the rest of the pollution problems would remain. A sizable fraction would go away, but many factories would still pollute the atmosphere.

Just because we'll have to switch to renewables at some stage, that doesn't mean pollution will go away.

[orz]

Therein lies the problem.

It will allow us to continue to ignore the ecological limits.

Ecological limits would be irrelevant. If we had infite energy we could theoretically construct our own planet or grow food through hydroponics or any number of ludicrously energy intensive schemes that would support exponential growth.

What you need to understand is that Earth is a ball of chemicals that is temporarily hospitable to our species and that one day it will kick us out no matter how "eco friendly" or "sustainable" we are. If we have to burn through this planet to find a way to get off it, I have no qualms with that.

Of course right now we're burning through the planet like it's gonna supply us forever, which I have major problems with.