Comments on: Why Nuclear Power in not a Solution to Peak Oil – The Final Installment. Because there are Just Too Many Other Reasons…

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:49:06 +0000

ever heard of thorium generators?

By: David price

David price — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:54:53 +0000

Lovelock made a mess of his answer to the lady. Chernobyl was a jerry built soviet effort, lacking even a containment vessel. nobody is planning to build reactors without containment vessels the example is irrelevent.
Also greens have only themselves to blame. If they hadn’t started the hysteria over global warming nuclear power would be dead and buried.

By: Davie

Davie — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:06:58 +0000

Good work over the last four posts Rob. I heard an interesting fact throwen out by Bill McKibben during the third Peak Oil event I have attended in a fortnight over here in the states. During a lecture last night titled ‘Thinking Small Scale’ he said that we could make better carbon savings by giving everyone low energy light bulbs than we could by going nuclear.

Really looking forward to tomorrow’s great Transition Culture exclusive.

By: Jason Cole

Jason Cole — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:30:02 +0000

As Scott pointed out above, the issue of embodied energy in the fuel is the one that’s grossly overlooked.

When considering how much energy is required to “make” the fuel, it’s ridiculous to claim it to be a “zero carbon solution”.

Because it’s also made abroad, and that Uranium has already become a seller’s market (from a newspaper article from last year) it would seem foolish to depend on such a fuel. What happens if it skyrockets in price? What happens if the supplying country decides not to sell it?

If we pursue nuclear then it should only be done as far as we have the ability to stockpile the fuel.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:43:48 +0000

Space. Earth could be a garden without a single production or extraction industry supporting 20 billion people with a fraction of a percent of the resources that are just floating around the sun. Even if we didn’t get fusion off the ground for 50 years we could import all the uranium we need from space. Build a space elevator (technology that is closer to reality than practical fusion) and you don’t even have to worry about rockets failing when you carry all the waste up to orbit so you can dump it in the sun. It never fails to amaze me how environmentalists fail to look beyond the planet. Earth is great but there is enough stuff out there for every person who has ever lived to lead a lifestyle better than anything currently enjoyed on this planet. We need nukes in space until we can get fusion or something better. This is not science fiction. Google asteroid mining. Check it out. The future does not have to power down, and it certainly doesn’t have to be limited to one planet. Unless that is all we have the vision for.

By: Scott Drumm

Scott Drumm — Mon, 08 May 2006 15:35:39 +0000

I’ve read David Fleming’s work from FEASTA and while I haven’t personally checked his numbers, his approach appears sound and well thought out. I am a Nuclear Engineer (BS/MS) and a proponent of nuclear power (donning asbestos underwear now). My basic stance is that all energy production methods produce waste (even solar – the chemicals that make those cells are nasty) so the choice is simply whether you want to breath it or bury it.

That being said though, the key reason why nuclear fission won’t get us out of the Peak Oil problem is twofold:

1. Peak Oil is a liquid fuels problem, and last time I check Ford wasn’t making a nuclear-powered SUV.

2. If nuclear power was scaled up for electricity generation or hydrogen production, we would encounter “Peak Uranium” rather quickly, as David Flemming pointed out in his FEASTA report.

As you’ve stated, the popular “solution” to Peak Oil is to downscale, localize, and head towards permaculture. I think these are worthwhile goals, and I’m designing my own EarthShip even now. However, I personally refuse to accept that our civilization will enter a permanent, unrecoverable state of energy decline and all that means for our society and the human-carrying capacity of our planet. A short-term (50 year) correction I can believe, longer-term not so much.

So the only way to win the long-run game is through nuclear FUSION. Yes, the technology is a huge challenge, and yes it’s been promised to be ready “within 20 years” many times now. But that’s where I would put a sizeable fraction of my nuclear resources (scientists, engineers, and financial capital).

Regards,

Scott Drumm