funzone36 wrote: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.
funzone36 wrote:If we go the nuclear fission route, we'll be in uranium peak in 10 years.
Devil wrote:funzone36 wrote: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.
Doly wrote: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.
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.
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.Devil wrote:Your poll is silly. You have 2 options, one OR the other.
EnergySpin wrote: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
Ibon wrote: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.
Ibon wrote: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?
Ibon wrote: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.
Ibon wrote: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.
funzone36 wrote: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
Ibon wrote:EnergySpin wrote: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.
EnergySpin wrote:Ibon wrote: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.Ibon wrote: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".Ibon wrote: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.
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.
FatherOfTwo wrote: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.
FatherOfTwo wrote:If so, then why on earth do you insist on bashing nuclear? Why are you not seeing the big picture in this case?
Ibon wrote: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.
MonteQuest wrote:orz wrote: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
Therein lies the problem.
It will allow us to continue to ignore the ecological limits.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests