tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post2433755304994767659..comments2023-03-13T01:06:40.269-07:00Comments on BountifulEnergy: Thermodynamics does not imply near-term energy descentTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-34343667099287593892011-10-28T11:43:15.744-07:002011-10-28T11:43:15.744-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-56318491057787501042011-10-27T23:00:04.481-07:002011-10-27T23:00:04.481-07:00gJ:
I hope my comments wrt Greenpeace didn't ...gJ:<br /><br />I hope my comments wrt Greenpeace didn't come across as testy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I'm very frustrated with Greenpeace, as they consistently undermine nuclear power, which I feel is a big mistake.<br /><br />I'm not trying to come across as testy but this is one of the few issues I feel passionately about. Nuclear power could save us from global warming, could prevent millions of deaths from coal particulate inhalation, could prevent ocean acidification, and would have many other environmental benefits.<br /><br />Nuclear power could provide more than just electricity. It could also be a heat source for cement plants and smelting, and could also provide much of the power for transportation via plug-in hybrids, trolleybuses, and electrified rail routes. These things combined could reduce co2 emissions by 70%.<br /><br />IMO we need 500 new nuclear reactors in the United States and thousands worldwide. I'll try to justify this opinion in a subsequent article.<br /><br />-johnTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-8389644602962494832011-10-26T00:23:21.070-07:002011-10-26T00:23:21.070-07:00"On paper, or on a blog, its easy to schmooze...<i>"On paper, or on a blog, its easy to schmooze over the raw truth which is that it would only take one major accident to render a country uninhabitable, for a very long time."</i><br /><br />Is Japan uninhabitable? Are you talking about a country the size of Lichtenstein?<br /><br /><i>"Taking into account the energy required to process nuclear fuel and then nuclear waste it is far from certain whether long term nuclear energy is profitable nor environmentally sound "</i><br /><br />The energy required to process nuclear fuel can just as easily be provided by nuclear power. This is done in France already, which devotes 3 of its reactors to processing nuclear fuel.<br /><br />It is a common mistake to assume that the electricity for enrichment must come from fossil fuels.<br /><br />The total volume of nuclear waste generated from all plants worldwide is vanishingly small and would pose no danger even to the miniscule patch of the environment under which it's buried.<br /><br /><i>"(http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/nuclear-power-increasing-carbon-emissions)"</i><br /><br />The article you linked references a "fake study" used by Greenpeace. That study is similar to the fake studies that dispute global warming, except this one is even cruder (<i>much</i> cruder).<br /><br />Greenpeace is destroying the environment.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-13613212050322895692011-10-19T01:31:20.972-07:002011-10-19T01:31:20.972-07:00Anonymous, I think Fukushima clearly showed (and i...Anonymous, I think Fukushima clearly showed (and is continuing to show) that nuclear is far from a 'sensible' option. On paper, or on a blog, its easy to schmooze over the raw truth which is that it would only take one major accident to render a country uninhabitable, for a very long time. It would only take the theft of one nuclear waste container to spark widespread panic. Taking into account the energy required to process nuclear fuel and then nuclear waste it is far from certain whether long term nuclear energy is profitable nor environmentally sound (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/nuclear-power-increasing-carbon-emissions)greenJamienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-35468445413993298272011-10-18T14:55:39.273-07:002011-10-18T14:55:39.273-07:00The environmental risks of nuclear power should be...The environmental risks of nuclear power should be clear to anyone paying attention. Compounding the nuclear problem is the sad facts that despite the nuclear genie, No one wants genie sh*t stored in his backyard, so the stuff gets trucked off at great expense to some remote impoverished area that needs the "income" from storing this eternally toxic Sh*t. And there's always the risk of another Fukushima/Chernobl/Three Mile Island or some rogue element using nuclear power facilities as nuclear weapon labs. These risks add significantly to the cost both near-term and long.<br /><br />Nuclear's not near as simple as you would have it be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-60058436337982054262011-10-17T18:29:32.677-07:002011-10-17T18:29:32.677-07:00"how will we respond to the end of cheap fuel...<i>"how will we respond to the end of cheap fuel, the end of easy water, the end of stable climate etc ? ... Future energy won't nearly be as 'bountiful' [as oil] and on the near-zero chance..."</i><br /><br />I believe that humanity will ultimately progress to nuclear power, because nuclear is the only sensible option. I think we'll use nuclear for our electricity, for intensive heat applications like cement plants, and also for transportation via plug-in hybrid vehicles.<br /><br />I think we'll transition to breeder reactors fairly quickly (within 80 years), and then to hot fusion reactors within a few thousand years.<br /><br />This is basically inevitable, because nothing else even comes close to nuclear. Nuclear will become necessary as fossil fuels are gradually exhausted.<br /><br /><i>"Future energy won't nearly be as 'bountiful'"</i><br /><br />Oh yes it will be.<br /><br />I realize that many energy-decline theorists speak of the "amazing energy density" of fossil fuels, that "nothing compares" to fossil fuels, that FF are some kind of amazing endowment. In fact, however, fossil fuels are <i>nothing</i> compared to our nuclear endowment. FF are a paltry dirty little waste that should have been relegated to niche applications decades ago. They're like burning animal shit, but dirtier and worse. Also, FF do <b>not</b> have a remarkable energy density; in fact their density is negligible compared to nuclear (about <i>one millionth</i> the density).<br /><br />Regrettably, the environmental movement forced a change from nuclear to coal in the 1970s. For example, in 1975 there were several hundred nuclear reactors on order in the USA alone. At that trajectory we would have replaced the entire electricity generation infrastructure with nuclear plants within 25 years. It was put on hold for <i>political reasons</i> (not technological reasons) but it remains the correct approach.<br /><br />IMO, the main question is: will we switch to nuclear power before, or after we've raised the temperature by 5 degrees centigrade and turned the oceans to acid. The answer would have been "before," but unfortunately, many people in the environmental movement perform drastically incorrect risk assessments.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-30336313044736884742011-10-13T21:14:02.731-07:002011-10-13T21:14:02.731-07:00We 'could' do anything, at least in our im...We 'could' do anything, at least in our imaginations. We *will* start feeling the pressures of reality and are already. Given how we've responded to the debt crisis, a largely imaginary human construct, how will we respond to the end of cheap fuel, the end of easy water, the end of stable climate etc ? Given how delusional the general public is and their willingness to believe that climate change is a conspiracy (it isn't by the way) I wonder how effective the response will be to transition peacefully (it won't) to clean energy.<br /><br />One common idea from thermodynamics is that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. The human race has benefited greatly from the almost free lunch that was cheap and easy oil, and look where it got us and how wisely we used it. Future energy won't nearly be as 'bountiful' and on the near-zero chance it will be how well would we use it?greenJamienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-63490388605411902082011-10-10T06:49:28.928-07:002011-10-10T06:49:28.928-07:00the laws of thermodynamics are compatible with a w...the laws of thermodynamics are compatible with a wide range of outcomes for civilization, including the outcome of sustained first-world living standards for a large, stable population for a very long time."<br /><br />The Laws of Thermodynamics are also consistent with sustained third-world or worse living conditions for large and declining populations for a very long time. Your repeated harping on the earth as open/closed system is really not shedding much light on anything. The energy from the sun is only useful if one can capture it and put it to good use. Over the past months, the sun has baked vast regions of the US into dry, inhospitable areas incapable of producing food or livestock and driving any numbers of farmers and ranchers out of business. Sure, all that energy from the sun COULD have been put to better use, but despite record spending and debt, IT WASN'T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com