Re: Questions on uranium reserves

I note that you've toned down the insults, insinuations and deliberate
misrepresentation, Langmuir: well done!

You ask "what is the practical alternative to nuclear power?"

Very briefly: the practical alternatives are reduced energy usage and
renewable energies.

But your question as posed is not very helpful: you seem to be
presenting this is a black-and-white "nuclear" OR "non-nuclear" issue.
I don't see it this way. Nor does a recent UK "expert panel" on climate
change and energy strategies: please see especially the panel's
response to questions 13, 14 and 15...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5152590.stm

In greater detail, then... I personally don't see this is a question of
being 100% for or 100% against nuclear power. In practical terms, we're
talking here about the medium-term energy strategies of individual
nation states. The best-bet strategies of different states will of
course vary, given differences in their energy resources and diverse
other factors. Most states are aiming to diversify energy production
strategies (often fossil + renewables + nuclear) and at the same time
to reduce energy wastage. Plans are being made for the nearish future
(next 50 years), and are subject to very significant uncertainty about
all sorts of things, including the price of oil and the full potential
of renewable energies.

If you're suggesting that the US or any other state should aim to
switch massively to nuclear, I don't think many people will agree with
you (see the BBC link). Quite apart from other questions*, nuclear
power *is* qualitatively different from the other candidate
technologies for energy generation, in view of a) the non-negligible
risk of massive catastrophe, and b) the possibility that further
development of civil nuclear technologies will favour the development
of more nuclear weapons, again with significant risk of massive
catastrophe. [You will perhaps counter that there's never been anything
worse than Chernobyl, which wasn't *that* catastrophic: but that that's
the worst so far is not a sufficient demonstration of the acceptability
of the risk, and I think most people worldwide remain very concerned
about the risks associated with nuclear power.]

In fact, you do appear (?) to be arguing for a massive switch to
nuclear power. I guess (?) that your argument goes roughly like this:
1) we need to maintain current levels of energy use for social
progress, 2) fossil fuels are going to run out soon, 3) renewable
sources are insufficient to provide our energy needs, 4) nuclear power
is the only other option, and 5) therefore we must accept its
major-catastrophe risks.

This argument can be challenged at almost all its steps, but let's
focus on 1 and 3.

In regard to 1: most of us accept that fossil-fuel-driven economic
progress has had broadly positive social effects, and most of us
realize that developing countries urgently need cheap energy to escape
from poverty; but likewise most of us are concerned that Western
society's massive resource use and environmental impact is not
sustainable on a global scale. Massive energy use tends to correlate
with massive use of other resources and massive environmental impact
(though certainly it's not quite as simple as this). So there are
perfectly sensible reasons for looking for ways of maintaining and
extending the social progress we've gained, but with lower
energy/resource use. There's nothing inherently impossible about this:
self-evidently, much of our current energy/resource use goes on things
that can hardly be considered fundamental to human wellbeing (SUVs,
strawberries in winter, heated shopping malls). If you'll permit me
some block capitals... TO SUGGEST THAT OUR SOCIAL WELLBEING *REQUIRES*
CONTINUATION OF CURRENT WESTERN ENERGY USE STRIKES ME AS UNREASONABLE
AND DEFEATIST.

In regard to 3: all of us are aware that renewable energies have big
problems, including capital costs, environmental impacts, diffuse
distribution, and supply-related problems (windless days, meeting peak
demands, storage). [Note though that none imply a risk of massive
catastrophe like nuclear.] However, all of these problems can
foreseeably be reduced by human ingenuity, and various renewable
energies are already viable for large-scale power generation (notably
hydroelectric, wind power and biomass production), and are making
steadily increasing contributions to the total. According to the
website of the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, for example,
"Shell International predicts that renewable energy will supply 60% of
the world's energy by 2060". This is a mainstream prediction from
energy experts, not from somebody on the whackier fringes of the
environmentalist movement. Other predictions are less optimistic: but
nevertheless, the consensus among energy experts seems to be that
renewable energies can be expected to make very significant
contributions in the medium-term (next 50 years), possibly the
principal contribution in the longer term, and certainly a serious
contribution if combined with greater energy efficiency.

In short, you seem (?) to be saying "Nuclear power is our only option,
so let's start making a big switch to nuclear". In contrast, I'm saying
"Let's aim for a more sustainable culture with reduced energy/resource
use and maximal use of renewable energies; if we have to use nuclear
power, so be it, but let's try to minimize it".

Both views merit respect from the other camp, I think.

- Phos

* Nuclear power, like other energy sources, has diverse other problems,
including the uranium supply issue which we've already debated, and
about which my conclusion - not yours, I know - is a) that viable
terrestrial reserves may prove significantly limiting, and b) that
neither sea harvesting of U or fast breeder technologies have yet been
confirmed to be viable.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: interesting article on nuclear
    ... There is a subsection about nuclear ... moving to a sustainable and largely carbon-free energy future. ... This requires a reliable supply of electricity which cannot be readily ... providing clean baseload power. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... Republicans are so wishy washy as to be afraid of losing their base that I'm sure they'll start opposing nuclear alternatives also. ... I'm pretty confidant that in about 50 years we'll have a dependable sourceof energy that is non-fossil and non-nuclea r. ... wind power is quite advanced. ... For example a good location is an isolated one where it would be expensive to ship oil and a small atoll or island where the side benefits of fresh water production and aquaculture and air conditioning might figure into the return on investment. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Solar powered lasers in space
    ... In point of fact you could get rid of New York ... When you can fly ballistically at 1 gee to any point on Earth in 20 ... have computers of fantastic power, ... LBJ hadn't cut back on nuclear propulsion systems, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast