Obviously you're missing the whole "overshoot" problem, since you plan to avoid it somehow with nuke plants.
Can you explain how you plan to deal with overshoot by building more nuke plants?
PeakOil is You
Nuclear or Renewables?
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Daryl » Thu 15 Dec 2005, 14:51:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'I')'m repeating myself here, but I think it needs repeating.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
This to me is the realist's big picture. The utopian big picture is that we somehow go from wild energy orgy, forgo nuclear and learn to live off the solar flux. I’d love for that to be true. Now, how many of you honestly think that is likely?
Does anyone disagree that Problem #1 is surviving the transition? Perhaps you will disagree if you’re of the opinion that humans should be wiped off the face of the planet, be “taught a lesson” for messing with Mother Earth, but other than that, if you want us to survive, learn, gain wisdom, then Peak Oil can’t be such a thorough ass whipping that we are never able to get up off the ground.
Everybody and their dog on this site know that Peak Oil will result in enormous economic hardship. The temptation to resort to resource wars will be strong. Our history is chock full of examples.
So, tell me how we are going to go through all of this and then at the same time tell people, well ya, there is this nuclear technology that we can use to make things “less bad” but we can’t use it because we’ve had such a rip roaring party for the last 100+ years on fossil fuels that now we have to go to the other end of the spectrum. It’s like condemning ourselves to the death penalty instead of 30 years of hard labor.
Fortunately one positive of the current global mindset of never ending growth gives me reason to believe that we’re going to fight like hell (hopefully only figuratively speaking) as we go through this massive transition. Nuclear, coal, everything will be thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully we’ll be partially successful and not only give ourselves a reprieve from death but also gain some wisdom in the process.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
We must give ourselves the best odds of surviving the transition.
This to me is the realist's big picture. The utopian big picture is that we somehow go from wild energy orgy, forgo nuclear and learn to live off the solar flux. I’d love for that to be true. Now, how many of you honestly think that is likely?
Does anyone disagree that Problem #1 is surviving the transition? Perhaps you will disagree if you’re of the opinion that humans should be wiped off the face of the planet, be “taught a lesson” for messing with Mother Earth, but other than that, if you want us to survive, learn, gain wisdom, then Peak Oil can’t be such a thorough ass whipping that we are never able to get up off the ground.
Everybody and their dog on this site know that Peak Oil will result in enormous economic hardship. The temptation to resort to resource wars will be strong. Our history is chock full of examples.
So, tell me how we are going to go through all of this and then at the same time tell people, well ya, there is this nuclear technology that we can use to make things “less bad” but we can’t use it because we’ve had such a rip roaring party for the last 100+ years on fossil fuels that now we have to go to the other end of the spectrum. It’s like condemning ourselves to the death penalty instead of 30 years of hard labor.
Fortunately one positive of the current global mindset of never ending growth gives me reason to believe that we’re going to fight like hell (hopefully only figuratively speaking) as we go through this massive transition. Nuclear, coal, everything will be thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully we’ll be partially successful and not only give ourselves a reprieve from death but also gain some wisdom in the process.
I don't think you need to be so defensive. There is alot of tension on these boards because the make-up of the participants is changing. As Peak Oil awareness rises, more and more mainstream people like yourself are showing up to discuss practical solutions to the energy crisis. Previously, the board consisted mostly of survivalist apocalype-lovers and activist environmentalists. Both groups actually welcome Peak Oil and don't really want to discuss transitions to other energy sources. The environmentalists passionately believe in the necessity of a powerdown. Sounds OK on the surface, but unfortunately, a powerdown implies a very large die-off in the human population. Some acknowledge this, others don't. I would bet that very few of them are parents. At least they are not being hypocritical - it would be hard to advocate a die-off if you are producing more humans yourself.
-
Daryl - Tar Sands
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by FatherOfTwo » Thu 15 Dec 2005, 14:58:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat I don't understand is why we need MORE power plants. When those of us in the First World already use 5 or so Earth's worth of resources, why do we need to produce MORE energy? What is it FOR? Pardon my allcaps, but I'm just not understanding this. Why, when we're using far more than our share of Earth's energy, do we need to produce MORE ENERGY? When will we say "enough?" How many nuke/coal, whatever plants do we need to build before we say "Stop"?
Then this is the crux of the difference between our viewpoints.
I do not see it as MORE, I see it as compensating (but not meeting) what we are LOSING from declining oil output. I prefer us to slowly draw down, instead of going cold turkey and into shock.
If we aren't about to start having less energy in the foreseeable future, then what exactly is everyone worried about?
-
FatherOfTwo - Tar Sands
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by Ibon » Thu 15 Dec 2005, 15:01:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')So, tell me how we are going to go through all of this and then at the same time tell people, well ya, there is this nuclear technology that we can use to make things “less bad” but we can’t use it because we’ve had such a rip roaring party for the last 100+ years on fossil fuels that now we have to go to the other end of the spectrum. It’s like condemning ourselves to the death penalty instead of 30 years of hard labor.
')So, tell me how we are going to go through all of this and then at the same time tell people, well ya, there is this nuclear technology that we can use to make things “less bad” but we can’t use it because we’ve had such a rip roaring party for the last 100+ years on fossil fuels that now we have to go to the other end of the spectrum. It’s like condemning ourselves to the death penalty instead of 30 years of hard labor.
I was smiling when I read this imagining how those 7 million people in Florida are going to say no to nuclear when fossil fuel becomes so expensive that they cant run all their air conditioners in summer. Renewables wont do it. Coal will and so will nuclear. I am sure everyone on this board knows that we're going to burn coal and nuclear like hell to keep those air conditioners going. Air conditioning in Florida is an example of one of those unsustainable designs that we built with the supplemental energy of fossil fuels. And it isn't a luxury since without it people would not survive, surely not in the numbers we have living there. Old florida homes had breezways and were nestled under live oaks. Imagine those 30 story condominioms baking in the sun without power to run air conditioners? You know how many old people die in heat waves. You know how many old retirees are living there? I guess Ludi that partially answers your question on why our society will build more plants. To maintain those parts of our infrastructure that were designed during abundant fossil fuels but that can not be re-engineered otherwise quickly. Florida is just one of hundreds of similar examples around the planet.
-
Ibon - Expert
- Posts: 9572
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Volcan, Panama
Re: Nuclear or renewables?
by FatherOfTwo » Thu 15 Dec 2005, 15:06:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') don't think you need to be so defensive. There is alot of tension on these boards because the make-up of the participants is changing. As Peak Oil awareness rises, more and more mainstream people like yourself are showing up to discuss practical solutions to the energy crisis. Previously, the board consisted mostly of survivalist apocalype-lovers and activist environmentalists. Both groups actually welcome Peak Oil and don't really want to discuss transitions to other energy sources. The environmentalists passionately believe in the necessity of a powerdown. Sounds OK on the surface, but unfortunately, a powerdown implies a very large die-off in the human population. Some acknowledge this, others don't. I would bet that very few of them are parents. At least they are not being hypocritical - it would be hard to advocate a die-off if you are producing more humans yourself.
Defensive? Maybe a bit, but not really. I prefer passionate. My beef is that I see so few moderates, people who acknowledge there is a problem, understand why we have that problem and want to work to fix it. Instead we have a few cornucopians who see no problems and tons of eco-fascists who want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I've been on this forum for over a year and I see it as a tremendous tool in educating those who have their head in the sand about oil depletion. Ultimately even with the overwhelming number of eco-fasists on this site it does much more good than bad. While I haven't learnt much new in the past 6 months, I stick around to try to maintain the moderates voice and I have to get passionate about it sometimes.
-
FatherOfTwo - Tar Sands
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
