funzone36 wrote:Ok. I finally got my head out of the sand about the uranium supply issue.
Congratulations! I wish a few others around here would realize the same thing.
funzone36 wrote:But wait a minute. Do you expect we can build enough nuclear reactors so that we can have a smooth transition from oil to nuclear when peak oil hits?
This could be a valid question. If it takes 10 years of fighting lawsuits to build a single plant, it'll be too little, too late. But in Europe, they're begining to build nuke plants in as little as 2 years. The U.S., however, is looking at having standardized, pre-designed reactors that will go in very fast, because they'll have pre-approval on the design, and protection against lawsuits. The only obstacle for those will be in choosing sites.
funzone36 wrote:See, this is what I always say. I'm not saying that alternative energies can't provide us with electricity. I'm just saying they won't help prevent peak oil.
Nothing can prevent peak oil. We will continue to use oil until it peaks and well beyond. There are some variables, however, that can be changed to make peak oil much less of an issue.
1) Delaying the oil peak. Improved oil recovery, and a shift in our economy from oil will push back the peak.
2) Smoothing the oil peak. The less dependent we are on oil when it finally peaks, the better.
So... the more we can shift to a nuk-electric economy, the easier the peak will be on us when it finally arrives.
But nuclear alone isn't the answer. Nuclear + biofuels + efficiency + wind/solar/geo... anything helps.
But nuclear is already in a position to change things.