I just read the book…it’s excellent. Well done.

It appears that nuclear will suffer from the Principle of Receding Horizons just like almost every other heretofore abundant energy source.

The whole book is valuable, but I particularly learned about the waste created simply in making the uranium. I had no idea about the depleted uranium hexafluoride.

Thanks for putting together a concise, readable guide together.

-Andre’

Peak Oil, Climate Change and Business
Free, Bi-Weekly Executive Briefing
“… very motivating…A very powerful presentation.” – Sun Microsystems
http://www.inspiringgreenleadership.com/peak-oil-climate-change-and-business

@codesuidae: I’m not sure how you searched the document, but thorium is listed in the index of the report. You will find the main discussion of it on pp. 24-26.

@Randall Parker and richard schumacher: Uranium from seawater, thorium and fast breeder reactors (along with other potential sources of fuel) are all covered in Chapter 4 of the report.

@ Lucy Skywalker: I’m intrigued by your ideas – I’m going to try and get in touch via your website, but if I fail and you read this drop me an email!

@ Rob: Thanks for the review!

At the end of this century there will be nine billion people on Earth. Even assuming a European level of energy efficiency, supporting them at a Western standard of living will require increasing energy consumption by roughly a factor of four. This is impossible only through conservation, and would result in ruinous global warming if achieved with fossil fuels. Economic justice and environmental responsibility together require that we retire fossil energy and greatly expand all available non-fossil energy sources: nuclear, Solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

1) Some Japanese researchers have found a way to economically extract the uranium in the oceans. The cost is higher than the current cost of uranium but still affordable.

2) Very plentiful thorium can extend the usefulness of uranium. A company called Thorium Energy is developing the technology to use blends of thorium and uranium in existing reactors.

3) The amount of exploration done to date for uranium is far less than for oil. Likely many more uranium deposits are waiting to be found. There’s not an analogy here with Peak Oil.

4) Fast breeder reactors can greatly extend the useful supply of uranium as well.

The claim falls down, because it assumes that the cost of extracting Uranium remains fixed while the price of Uranium rises. But what is the main cost factor in the extraction of Uranium? Essentially, energy. Since the price of Uranium is strongly correlated with the price of energy, it is inevitable that the cost base of extracting Uranium will rise in tandem with the price of Uranium. This is why, as Richard Heinberg explains in “The Party’s Over”, the only rational way to measure the efficiency of extracting an energy resource is EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). If EROI goes up, extraction becomes more efficient; if down, less efficient. The general tendency for any particular energy resource, however, is for the EROI to track an inexorable downard path. When it reaches 1, the game is over (you make no energy profit whatsoever).

It is possible, though, to enjoy the illusion of increased extraction efficiency as the price of a resource goes up. This can happen in the case where there is a prior investment in a lot of extraction technology, plant, and machinery. When the price of the energy resource shoots up, the existing extraction business becomes immensely profitable, giving the illusion of increased efficiency. However, you have to remember that all of the plant and machinery was built during the era of cheap fossil fuels, giving the extraction operation a massive subsidy from the cheap fossil fuel era. If the machines wear out and have to be replaced during an era of high energy prices, the operators of the business will quickly discover that the operation is not as profitable as it used to be (in fact, it may even turn out to be loss-making). You can see something like this already happening in the case of the tar sands in Canada. The existing operations are finally making a profit, but attempts to expand are being hurt by spiralling costs, including the increasing price of steel and a shortage of qualified personnel.

In fact I will stick my neck out and make a bold claim that directly contradicts Nick’s claim: if an energy extraction operation is not economic during the era of cheap fossil fuels, it will never become economic in the future as the price of energy rises.

You have to attach a caveat to the preceding claim, though. Operations that benefit from existing infrastructure and machinery (hence enjoying a hidden subsidy) are a special case. They might actually become economic (profitable) when there is a sudden jump in energy prices. But this does not mean they are energy efficient. Really, what is happening here is a kind of arbitrage, where the embodied energy of the machinery and infrastructure bought cheaply during the cheap fossil fuel era can now be “sold” (used) at a profit during an era of high energy prices. In other words, instead of investing money building monster trucks and diggers to extract oil from the tar sands in Canada, the oil companies would probably have been better off simply filling up a gigantic tank of oil sometime in the mid-90s, when oil was $10 a barrel, and selling it now, for $100 a barrel (or they could simply have left the oil in the ground).

I do not think governments are set to easily discount a technology that could help us maintain our civilisation.

Nick.

I think we need key TT info all together with the sort of format that works so well with websites – a front end with one-line titles, each hyperlinked to (first level) leaflet-length info done as a collection of FAQ’s (+ pics where helpful), and (second level) sources and links. One very good example of this is How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
ECOROPA did a whole range of “snappy fact” leaflets in the seventies, the like of which I’ve not seen since. I’m planning to republish them all on our website http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk. – just as a start to inspire collaboration. But they need updating which is beyond my capability.

I feel I’m still a lone operator with a bright idea though I’m sure I’m right. I intend to go on developing and broadcasting this work. I want to see a global “Great Ingathering” of “snappy facts” and useful practices which complements and distils the “Great Unleashings” of our local genius.

We need this kind of key TT info all together with the sort of format that works so well with websites – a front end (close to Home Page) with one-line titles, hyperlinked to (first level) leaflet-length info FAQ-style, and (second level) sources and links. One very good example of this is the GristMill pages on “How to Answer a Climate Change Skeptic”.

I so want to see a whole range of “snappy fact” downloadable leaflets like ECOROPA did in the seventies, the like of which I’ve not seen since. I’m planning to republish them all online, on our website http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk. But they need updating which is beyond my capability. I feel we need a standard source of excellence that all of us in Transition Towns can go to.

I’m working on this in every which way I ca dream up. But I feel I’m still a lone operator with a bright idea though I’m sure I’m right. I intend to go on putting the word out, developing our website, and searching… We have a forum though it has not yet hit critical mass. Next stop will be to answer the University thread in the Transition Net forum. I want to see a global “Great Ingathering” of vital facts to complement the “Great Unleashings” of our local genius.