On Jul 10, 12:43 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Soylent Diesel is People'')"
<tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > And everyone is moving forward with oil. That doesn't mean it's going
> > to be a solution.
>
> There is plenty of thorium. You claim a build out won't work
> because there isn't enough uranium.
There is, according to your source, three times as much thorium as
uranium. That is hardly enough to be a long term solution.
> > The quotes said nothing new, and nothing to make one think nuclear
> > energy is going to be a savior.
>
> What other options are there? Nuclear is low cost, it can be used
> as base power, it can produce a lot of power, it doesn't have large
> green house gas issues (other than in construction with all the
> concrete).
First, I think we're probably going to end up finding a new energy
equilibrium which is going to be below where we are now. The era of
really cheap energy may be over. Even if we started building nuclear
plants tomorrow, it would take a long, long time for many to be on
line. Second, the solution is a mix of a wide number of sources and
new technologies -- wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc. Finally,
at some point we'll be back to cheap energy when these sources are
truly developed, solar especially has the potential to provide
limitless energy if we could learn to harness it. But the transition
will take time, and not be easy.
> > The sun isn't real? Wind isn't real?
>
> They aren't base or peaking power.
They potentially can be developed to provide a lot of good energy,
especially solar. For the long run, they are more promising than
nuclear.
> > I'm not discounting nuclear energy as part of the transition away from
> > fossil fuels, but to posit it as "the only solution" and a cure all is
> > simply not credible,
>
> There is no other solution.
You make these pronouncements with no real argument or evidence, as if
somehow you are channeling a psychic. If there are no other
solutions, then there are no solutions because nuclear energy CANNOT
be the solution because even if we moved really fast it would take a
long time to build the reactors, and the thorium reactors are still in
developmental stages. But the energy crisis is now. And we aren't
moving really fast, and are unlikely to. So if the only answer is
nuclear, there is no answer.
> > nor does it go along with the research being done
> > out there on various alternative energies. We'll need a mix of
> > different approaches, the idea we need ONE source to be the "new oil"
> > is misguided. Remember, thorium supplies are limited as welll.
>
> There's a lot of thorium.
Your source said three times as much as uranium. That's not that
much, especially with rising energy demands.
> > You don't cite anything to sup****t your case, you only cite well known
> > information about thorium as if it were something new.
>
> You were denying that it would even work, that it was mere
> speculation.
No, I was pointing out that you have not shown that nuclear energy can
be a real long term answer (and every expert I've read -- and for my
Syriana class where we do a whole unit on oil and energy I've dug into
this a lot -- looks at nuclear as a short term solution for the
transition, not long term). You've not provided me any reason to
change my read on the issue.
> > We were
> > talking about breeder reactors back in the 70s, for cryin' out loud.
>
> The problems with nuclear are primarily, and have been for a long
> time, political.
That's one issue, but not the only one.
> > I don't know anyone, besides you, who thinks they can be mass produced
> > in a way to solve the crisis. Your cites are technical information
> > about the process works --- again, nothing new -- but not about the
> > feasibility for long term mass use.
>
> France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. It ex****ts
> electricity. If the US could do that, it would give it added
> options including the sort of electrical surpluses needed to build
> electric cars out.
You know how long it would take to get us to that level -- and how
much fuel we'd be using, and how long that fuel would last? Not to
mention how long it would take to get pass political hurdles against
building that many nuclear plants (people may want them, but not in
their back yard, and so there will be fights over location that likely
could drag on for years). So move away from fantasy to reality, and
the problems facing nuclear energy in the US are immense.
It should be clear I'm not against using nuclear energy, I'm just
extremely skeptical about your apparently unwarranted optimism that it
is "the" solution.
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Today's blog: Consumerism and Fascism!
|
