Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Nuclear or Renewables?

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Would you adjust your lifestyle and embrace a shift to renewables or more nuclear power

Yes
44
No votes
No
18
No votes
 
Total votes : 62

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 15:27:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')If new nuclear plants are being built to take up the slack from depleting oil, in what way is that not "business as usual" since there would (theoretically) be no less available energy (it having been made up by nukes)?


I don't expect that full scale replacement will occur... I think it's probable we have much less available energy.
Monte doesn't expect it to occur either ... take a look at his threads in his "best of monte section" (eg. infrastructure report etc.)

You can't have it both ways. Either the impacts of Peak Oil are going to be significant and long lasting or we are going to transition to another fuel without any (energy) problems.
Last edited by FatherOfTwo on Mon 19 Dec 2005, 17:49:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Yes to both

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 15:34:16

I voted yes to adjusting my lifestyle. Unfortunately I don't think renewables alone will cut it. A lot of experts question the ability of renewables, which are by their nature diffuse and intermittent, to meet all our energy needs. Whatever other ills they may have, nukes are proven energy technology, and, as I think you agree, this is a big problem. I don't want to adjust my lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels. And I don't want to see billions of people die to get back to a population level sustainable with renewables. So, I think we need to both develop renewables, scale back our per capita consumption through greater efficiency and lifestyle changes, bring population growth down to zero, and build nukes to make up the balance. Do just one or a few of these and it won't be enough IMO.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California
Top

Re: Yes to both

Unread postby Daryl » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 16:55:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', 'I') voted yes to adjusting my lifestyle. Unfortunately I don't think renewables alone will cut it. A lot of experts question the ability of renewables, which are by their nature diffuse and intermittent, to meet all our energy needs. Whatever other ills they may have, nukes are proven energy technology, and, as I think you agree, this is a big problem. I don't want to adjust my lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels. And I don't want to see billions of people die to get back to a population level sustainable with renewables. So, I think we need to both develop renewables, scale back our per capita consumption through greater efficiency and lifestyle changes, bring population growth down to zero, and build nukes to make up the balance. Do just one or a few of these and it won't be enough IMO.


How have you lasted so long around here? You are much too reasonable. Of course the road ahead involves some mix of all of the above. Nuclear and renewables probably will never have the ability to support as much growth as occured during the cheap hydrocarbon age. That's what will probably reverse population growth in the end. Less power available, less food available, less people. But what about the capitalist growth system? Well, maybe the economic system will adjust to the circumstances. Duh! It doesn't have to be an apocalypse, people.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 17:30:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'y')ou are right Monte. Dezakin is insane. He thinks he is god

Ah, not an ad-hominem right, merely a character observation?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')o being the good capitalist you are why not just set up a private business in your back yard and screw those socialist one-world-government ecologists

A good capitalist needs capital. Those with capital are in the process of doing just that.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby DigitalCubano » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 17:49:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')There are so many well-intentioned people with so much scientific and emotional baggage that I fear change of any kind will not be allowed to happen. But that is okay because I am very well prepared.


That has to be the biggest load of %$#^%! that I've read on here in quite some time. That's saying something!

Scientifc "baggage?" LOL! Wow. So now we're questioning the scientific method, objective analysis and peer scrutiny? Well, I guess when you omit those trivialities then a lot of what you write makes sense after all...
User avatar
DigitalCubano
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Curmudgicus » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 18:13:47

[smilie=5arg.gif]
[smilie=5geezer.gif]

This thread has mutated like a Chernoble mushroom.

There have been a lot of quotes to the effect that - "I'm not willing to see a massive die-off to a sustainable level of energy consumption."

First, we'll presume (mightily) that there's a choice. Listen now to Xerxes, king of the Persians, upon observing his gigantic army crossing into Greece over a bridge. He wept. When asked why, he said:

“For there entered into me to feel utter pity when I had reckoned how all human life is brief, if at least of those, being so many, no one will be around for a hundredth year”.

Out of all humans now alive, if there were no children humanity would be extinct in roughly one hundred years. Adjustment is not difficult at all. It is typically not done through conscious thought or provision for the future, but it happens. All of our discussions about energy and resources become moot if we contemplate a population of less than 100 million worldwide. It needn't be through a massive wave of starvation or disease, because it happens to us all whether we will or no. If there are just ENOUGH children, then they could inherit a world blessed by the forethought of their elders, instead of cursed by their greed and intransigence.
User avatar
Curmudgicus
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 18:19:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ezakin wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') good capitalist needs capital. Those with capital are in the
process of doing just that.

No. A good capitalist has money. A failed one doesn't.

Stop playing semanting games and foisting strawmen in an attempt to tar and feather my point. A successful capitalist has money and to be successful requires investment capital. Its one of the sociological criticisms of capitalism I have sympathy for, the fact that success in a capitalist society often has a high barrier to entry that enforce social strata. Going deeper that that gets off topic.

There are capitalists pursuing nuclear power today, and they are ones with capital.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 18:31:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', ' ')Its one of the sociological criticisms of capitalism I have sympathy for, the fact that success in a capitalist society often has a high barrier to entry that enforce social strata. Going deeper that that gets off topic.

Tangent warning - oi vey, isn't that the truth. The other day I tried to get in on a private offering for a junior O&G play in Alberta. I couldn’t because I’m not an accredited investor. (ie. I’m not ultra rich) The rules for insisting on being an accredited investor are supposedly there to protect "small" investors because private placements don’t have the same rules to abide by as public stocks. Ya right, like I couldn’t be screwed holding onto a public stock (hello enron) … the rule just keeps the old boys club humming along.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 19:21:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Curmudgicus', '[')smilie=5arg.gif]
[smilie=5geezer.gif]

It needn't be through a massive wave of starvation or disease, because it happens to us all whether we will or no. If there are just ENOUGH children, then they could inherit a world blessed by the forethought of their elders, instead of cursed by their greed and intransigence.


Our global population remains the central issue on the subject of this thread as well as global warming, peak oil, peak water, peak soil, etc. Does mankind once again surrender our destiny to external natural events like resource depletion or disease or can we willfully, by design, bring our population to a sustainable level? Certain solciological trends seem to show population levelling off. That may moderate the most pessimistic forecasts of exponential population growth. But we already are in overshoot. There are about as many scientists doubting that today than there are those doubting global warming or soon to doubt peak oil. Why cant we apply rational planning to this problem the same way Walmart does for example when optimizing their just in time distribution of products to market. Because we humans have some sacred concept of our humanity that confuses quantity of humans with quality of humans. We need to limit our numbers. We need religious institutions, governments and popular culture to reinforce the meme that imposing limits on population growth is promoting spiritual, emotional and economic well being to humanity and depart from this bizaar idea that by doing so we are playing god or limiting freedom. As Gearge Carlin once said, " not every ejaculation deserves a name"!
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 20:07:40

Here we have another voice suggesting that expanding nuclear may not be the solution: A Review of “Energy and the Common Purpose – descending the Energy Staircase with Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs)” – David Fleming. http://transitionculture.org/?p=133

We can descend the energy staircase and draw this out with enough time to allow our population to correct without draconian measures that result in a die-off. Those of you cornucopians who believe so strongly in human enginuity only need to apply this cornucopian belief away from technological solutions and toward the sociological, spiritual, economical solutions that can make a transition away from fossil fuels over to a sustainable parqadigm work. It is possible. There is an optimistic scenario that embraces the cornucopian belief in the human spirit It just needs to be directed toward the intangible pursuit of our spiritual values and quality of life and away from finding this solution in technology.
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 20:10:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is an optimistic scenario that embraces the cornucopian belief in the human spirit It just needs to be directed toward the intangible pursuit of our spiritual values and quality of life and away from finding this solution in technology.


I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree. I agree there is an optimistic scenario, I don't agree that it needs to be directed toward an intangible pursuit. Quality of life is not entirely intangible. Technology is intrinsically human, we can't be human without technology. But we can choose which technologies are most helpful toward a particular vision of the life we want to live as a culture.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Daryl » Mon 19 Dec 2005, 20:54:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'H')ere we have another voice suggesting that expanding nuclear may not be the solution: A Review of “Energy and the Common Purpose – descending the Energy Staircase with Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs)” – David Fleming. http://transitionculture.org/?p=133

We can descend the energy staircase and draw this out with enough time to allow our population to correct without draconian measures that result in a die-off. Those of you cornucopians who believe so strongly in human enginuity only need to apply this cornucopian belief away from technological solutions and toward the sociological, spiritual, economical solutions that can make a transition away from fossil fuels over to a sustainable parqadigm work. It is possible. There is an optimistic scenario that embraces the cornucopian belief in the human spirit It just needs to be directed toward the intangible pursuit of our spiritual values and quality of life and away from finding this solution in technology.


I think you are arguing with the wrong people. There is not one cornucopean on these boards that doesn't think it would be a good thing to use less energy and have less people. We are only advocating nuclear and renewables as an emergency measure to prevent a catastrophic collapse. If I've misrepresented any cornucopeans with that statement, let me know.

If we can find a way to intervene to reduce population and gross energy use, fine. I've only been asking, how do yo do that? Thanks for being the first powerdown advocate that taken a shot at answering that question.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Yes to both

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 02:34:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', 'I') voted yes to adjusting my lifestyle. Unfortunately I don't think renewables alone will cut it. A lot of experts question the ability of renewables, which are by their nature diffuse and intermittent, to meet all our energy needs. Whatever other ills they may have, nukes are proven energy technology, and, as I think you agree, this is a big problem. I don't want to adjust my lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels. And I don't want to see billions of people die to get back to a population level sustainable with renewables. So, I think we need to both develop renewables, scale back our per capita consumption through greater efficiency and lifestyle changes, bring population growth down to zero, and build nukes to make up the balance. Do just one or a few of these and it won't be enough IMO.


You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.

If we are in overshoot, which all the signs and studies says we are, then the population will crash. If not now, then later. If later, then it will be worse. Energy alone cannot expand carrying capacity in a world governed by the "law of the minimum." It tells us that the carrying capacity for any given species is set by the necessity in least supply.

Can we manage a fully artifical environment? That is awfully thin ice.

Richard Heinberg asks:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re we clever enough to replace that mutally woven and micro-adjusted network of interdependence with an artificial system of our own design that is capable of satisfying all of our basic needs well into the future?

Again, some people may think so, but not, I'd guess, many people with much familiarity with how nature actually works.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ibon » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 03:09:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') think you are arguing with the wrong people. There is not one cornucopean on these boards that doesn't think it would be a good thing to use less energy and have less people. We are only advocating nuclear and renewables as an emergency measure to prevent a catastrophic collapse. If I've misrepresented any cornucopeans with that statement, let me know.

If we can find a way to intervene to reduce population and gross energy use, fine. I've only been asking, how do yo do that? Thanks for being the first powerdown advocate that taken a shot at answering that question.


I know that most of the readers are aware that there is no cornucopian solution and that I am preaching to the choir on that point. I came to this topic and website a while back with a more naive belief in solutions and it took me quite a while to see this issue with more objectivity. There is this misplaced confidence that we can fix things because we have done it for a few generations with apparent impunity. You have to back into many cul de sacs with your logic before you fully break down to understanding
that the fixing required is in our heads, in our collective culture. I know there are alot if brilliant people out there with technical expertise and technology solutions that could be applied. But we need a cultural shift to allow these solutions to fully get the priority that this emergency requires. My main interest is focussing on the catalysts that can speed up cultural change toward a sustainable paradigm. Events that can speed up a collective understanding. The faster we get economic disruption the better in my opinion. The quicker we see more severe effects of global warming the better. The quicker we start on the decline of our oil reserves the better. We need catalysts to get the process moving.

Today we are still going to the mall and living on borrowed time. The environment is still sustaining us and we continue to drive this modern world with cheap energy. How can we expect that humanity is going to shift toward a sustainable paradigm as long as the illusion of abundance surrounds us? The principals of sustainability may well start to be understood by our culture at large only when we start to suffer the effects of overshoot, depleted energy resources, and more severe effects of global warming. We need more Katrinas and higher energy prices and more disruption, the sooner the better, just enough to put the breaks on the decadent excess luxuries but keeping the basic infrastructure intact so that people change their behaviour but can still survive. This would be the most humane scenario, but there is no god engineering this transition, only us imperfect humans. I do believe in our culture's ability to incorporate change based on strong external signals that point the way.
Only time will tell. The longer we draw this out the worse the transition. Slowly there is a collective awareness of this emerging.
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Nuclear or renewables?

Unread postby Ibon » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 03:38:14

I'm off topic with continuing the theme about population but there is an interesting new post on this website that makes a start at correlating global population growth with the effects of peak oil if anyone is interested: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12 ... /0641#more
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron