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.
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?