Scott Erb wrote:
>
> 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.
>
But there's a lot of uranium. If you think "long term" is hundreds
of years from now, I'm willing to use fission to bridge that gap to
whatever is next.
> > > 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.
>
I get it, you want to have Americans live like the Chinese instead
of the Chinese living like the Americans.
> 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.
>
So that's a scientific term "a long, long time"? I suspect you
could build plants in five years. If we are talking about smaller
ones, not the gigawatt size of old but maybe 650megawatt in groups
of identical cores, that's a lot of power.
> Second, the solution is a mix of a wide number of sources and
> new technologies -- wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc.
>
What does solar and wind give us? It can't be used for peaking
power. It can't be used for base power. They are dirty power, you
can't count on them.
> 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.
>
See, you are being kooky while telling me I'm wrong.
> > > 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.
>
If the long run is two hundred years, perhaps. But explain how
you'd use solar for base or peaking power. What happens when it's
night or a cloud comes by?
> > > 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,
>
That's not true. I have argument and evidence and it's real.
> 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,
>
How long do you think solar would take? We don't even know how to
use solar. The best ideas that I can come up with would be to try
to use something like the Columbia river dam system as a pumped
power buffer between the solar and wind. This would require high
voltage DC transmission from large solar installations in the sunny
south of the country. This is a *huge* project. And it can't really
be divided up. OTOH, nuclear is simple because we know how to build
the plants and we can build them one at a time.
> 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.
>
I don't believe it is currently a "crisis". It's difficult because
people don't want to pay $5 for a gallon of gas but it's not a
"crisis". So there's time if we act now or soon. But people are
fighting nuclear. You don't even have to leave usenet to see these
arguments.
> > > 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.
>
How much uranium does my source say there is? There's a lot of that
too.
> > > 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.
>
Define what "short" and "long" term mean. Long term means hundreds
of years from now, sure, we can have solar cells all over or
something.
> > > 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.
>
It's the main issue.
> > > 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,
>
Which is why I propose they be built underground in large reactor
farms with the heat energy provided to cities that are within 20
miles. Think about getting all the free heat you want in Kansas
City. That would make that city the place to move to.
I would find about eight cities to do this in. They should be north
enough to need the heat. They should be in areas with low seismic
activity and which are likely to not be affected if any of the
others are forced to shut down for some reason.
> 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.
>
I'm talking about what it would take for people to welcome the
nuclear plant to their backyard.
> 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.
>
There isn't any other answer.
--
"It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
-+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
|
