[Starvid]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Solar, wind, wave and biofuels are all powered by the great fusion reactor in the sky, which has a finite amount of nuclear fuel. It will eventually run out. But the time scales are so big that it doesn't matter.

And when we are talking nuclear fuel.... As above, so below.

[TonyPrep]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable. What you decide matters, is up to you. It's also an all or nothing, unless the aspect that is not sustainable is of little consequence to us (provided that it doesn't have a knock on effect, like ruining our habitat). That is, everything that we consider essential should be sustainable and everything we don't consider essential should not have a detrimental knock on effect to the things that we do consider essential. Even renewable resources can be consumed too rapidly and renewed in an unsustainable way (by depleting some other essential).

[mkwin]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable. What you decide matters, is up to you. It's also an all or nothing, unless the aspect that is not sustainable is of little consequence to us (provided that it doesn't have a knock on effect, like ruining our habitat). That is, everything that we consider essential should be sustainable and everything we don't consider essential should not have a detrimental knock on effect to the things that we do consider essential. Even renewable resources can be consumed too rapidly and renewed in an unsustainable way (by depleting some other essential).

You need to be more realistic about our options. It is a choice between coal and nuclear. You may be willing to accept a powerdown and hope you can survive but 3-4 billion other people are definitely not. Unless nuclear is expanded, we will be burning every fossil fuel we can to keep the system going, gas hydrates, coal to liquids, coal-bed methane you name it, we are going to burn it. Personally, I would rather take on board the risks on a massive build-up of nuclear than risk drastic run away climate change that turns the planet in to a perpetual desert and kills 95% of the species on this planet.

Nuclear is not perfect but it is not bad either. Hopefully solar will be competitive within ten years and we can cover the planet in nano solar film but until then we need to replace coal and gas with a solid nuclear base.

[TonyPrep]

You need to be more realistic about our options.

By that, I think you mean abandoning sustainability because societies around the world won't like it. I would regard that as unrealistic (because it is ignoring reality).

It is a choice between coal and nuclear.

Or a run down of both

You may be willing to accept a powerdown and hope you can survive but 3-4 billion other people are definitely not.

That is where reality kicks in. It matters not that 3-4 billion people won't accept it if nature will not allow them to continue to have the aspirations and lifestyles that they do.

Unless nuclear is expanded, we will be burning every fossil fuel we can to keep the system going, gas hydrates, coal to liquids, coal-bed methane you name it, we are going to burn it. Personally, I would rather take on board the risks on a massive build-up of nuclear than risk drastic run away climate change that turns the planet in to a perpetual desert and kills 95% of the species on this planet.

Well, that's a stark choice and I'd probably side with you if those were our only choices. Unfortunately, so long as most people think that there are no other options, the more likely it is that we will continue down the unsustainable route to collapse.

Nuclear is not perfect but it is not bad either. Hopefully solar will be competitive within ten years and we can cover the planet in nano solar film but until then we need to replace coal and gas with a solid nuclear base.

We don't need to do that. Let's step back, figure out how to live sustainably and, if we can, move towards that, which may mean we don't need much generated power.

Look, it's quite simple really, either we adapt to living sustainably or our society collapses. That might be within our lifetime (timescale is not a given, just the outcome, for an unsustainable society). Just because people don't want limits does not mean that they are not there and can be ignored.

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent. I merely stated that nuclear is unsustainable and a red book will not make it so, nor will it allow uranium to be mined and processed at any rate required for as long as is desired.

[mkwin]

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent. I merely stated that nuclear is unsustainable and a red book will not make it so, nor will it allow uranium to be mined and processed at any rate required for as long as is desired.

You're right we did go off on a bit of a tangent.

Final word, I would like to think we will live sustainabily in the long-term and I see great advances in technology that can help us do that. We are not going to go back to the 1900’s; if we do 3 billion will have to die. But we can reduce our impact and use clean modern technology.

In regards to looking at nuclear, we should remember much of the negative studies relate to plants built 60 years ago. It is like comparing a modern plane in terms of efficiency and safety to a twin propeller passenger plane from the 50's. The modern nuclear plants can be safe, cost effective, use little uranium, and reprocess the majority of the waste.

On a side note, check out this oil drum article. I am quoted with a question I asked on a previous discussion. Was pretty strange to suddenly see my username in the article.

link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877#more

[sch_peakoiler]

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable.

sorry for jumping in into your peaceful discussion.

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

so, whether you rely on what we call renewables for X thousand years or you rely on nuclear power for Y thousand years -> for me these to concepts are equally renewable and sustainable.

[sch_peakoiler]

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable.

sorry for jumping in into your peaceful discussion.

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

so, whether you rely on what we call renewables for X thousand years or you rely on nuclear power for Y thousand years -> for me these to concepts are equally renewable and sustainable.

[TonyPrep]

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

Of course, it is meaningless to talk of periods that are outside the timescale of humans. Other species may have interests beyond that, however. Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Renewable is different from sustainable. Renewable means that the resource can be renewed. The rate of renewal then become the critical factor. Consuming renewable resources beyond their renewal rates is unsustainable.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

But what is the practical lifetime and what is the production profile over that time? No-one knows, it is a leap of faith.

[yesplease]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

[TonyPrep]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.

[yesplease]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.

There isn't enough information to derive anything regarding probability IMO. We might as well start a debate about whether or not the big G exists. For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.

[TonyPrep]

For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.

No, that is the only thing we can state without fear of a pedant taking issue with it. What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

It's amazing the minutiae that you take issue with, yesplease.

[yesplease]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

[TonyPrep]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.

What a contrary person you are.

[EnergyUnlimited]

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.

In any case it will not outlive Solar System.

[yesplease]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.

What a contrary person you are.

Nope. Try again. Stating I, and likely you IMO, don't know if we will survive, is not the same as stating we will survive. Otoh, assuming we have infinite time, in order to use resources forever, is quite cornucopian. If whatshisfuzz had stated that using a certain amount given whatever would allow for resource use for a very long time, up to when the Earth as a sustainable habitat for humans/whatever they change into, then sure... But they were very specific regarding the wording/etc...

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.

In any case it will not outlive Solar System.

If you're basing it off that then sure, but it's kinda arbitrary given that it depends on our classification. For instance, if we choose sufficiently strict criteria, we could evaluate within the next few years. In any event, what will happen to the human race, or what we view as the descendants of that race, that far into the future, is unpossible to know AFAIK.

[TonyPrep]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand? All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

I have no idea why you'd argue that point anyway. The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

[yesplease]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future. The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future. If you have significant evidence that we will not outlast the solar system, whatever that means, I would like to see it.

The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of?

[TonyPrep]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%". It was poetic licence, for effect. However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that. So why are you putting so much emphasis on a bit of effect? You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.

There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.

The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.

Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.

The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of?

Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.

[yesplease]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".

How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

And since there is no degree specified, any quantity isn't redundant.

However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that.

Like I stated, above, accuracy does not imply a degree. Since you didn't understand this, according to a definition of the word, you hardly seem to know me. Given how little you "know" of someone who you communicate with, I wonder if you'll have any accurate information as to the fate of humanity and the solar system.

You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?

Your statement is not reasonable unless you have some way of predicting the future. That is what I am stating. There need not be 100% accuracy, but considering that no one has predicted the future over much smaller time periods with even the slightest degree of accuracy, I doubt you can predict anything accurately over a larger time period.

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.

There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.

I am not berating you, I am simply stating that saying one can predict the future is not possible AFAIK. If you have evidence to the contrary, that shows you can in fact do this, please present it. Show me how you "know", not suspect or think, but "know" that humans won't outlive/outlast the solar system.

The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.

Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.

It isn't reasonable unless you can predict the future. AFAIK, no one, including you and I, can. It doesn't have to be certain, simply reasonable. If you state you "know" the human species will not outlast/outlive the solar system, then I would like you see how you came to this conclusion. If it's true, you'll probably rock the scientific community to it's core.

Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.

There is no context, only what you state. How are you defining a cessation of existence? If the sun seeks to exist as we know it, is it the end of the the solar system? If we loose planets, is that the end of the solar system? What are your quantitative criteria?

That being said, if you wish to "fit" illogical "meanings" out of thin air that is fine by me... Perhaps you "know" this just like you "knew" what I was thinking or "implying" in the past.

we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Jeez, I don't know why I bother. Like I said before, you may not want to hear it from me, but I still think brushing up on some logic/math would be a good idea. You may come out with a better idea of what you "know" and what you "don't know".