by MonteQuest » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 00:42:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So how long do you suppose it will be inbetween noticeable effects of peak, and economic collapse?
Depends upon the rate and magnitude. For my take, read:
Post Peak Oil: The Slow Decline? in PO discussion.
To elaborate a bit and clarify my position with regard to nuclear power and it's potential, let's look at some criteria:
First, nuclear power will generate electricty not liquid fuel, which is going to be the crux of the matter.
One can say, ok, we will switch to electric cars.
Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost.
We will make hydrogen and burn in the ICE's.
Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost. No transport infrastructure. Energy "carrier" not a source of energy. New energy
consumer.
Not to mention, lack of grid transmission capacity with economies of scale in that over.
Second, waste disposal issues. Some states have moratoriums on new plants until the waste issue is resolved. Even if Yucca Mt is finalized as the "place" there isn't enough capacity there to handle the waste from the existing 104 plants, much less any new ones.
Third, limited sites to construct new plants. And as long as we have access to the courts, there will be opposition to new nuclear plants, which will cause permitting and construction delays, pushing the 6 year permit/build time to who knows how many years.
Fourth, access to fuel. Many claim we can extract it from seawater. We can extract gold form seawater, but we don't. Not economicaly feasible. No large scale facility has yet been built to prove the viability of this process. The World Nuclear Association says future nuclear development is predicated upon breeder reactors, period.
Fifth, high capital costs. If we hit an economic freight train, cost considerations will be paramount. We will choose to go the route of the cheapest, fastest way to get more liquid fuels: drilling off-shore, ANWR, CTL., GTL, EOR, tar sands and oil shale...before we ever go near nuclear power in a BIG WAY.
Sixth, and most likely the biggest one: no long-term proven track record for the new advanced reactor technology. This is key for investors. Wall Street
will not fund unproven nuclear technology. They are watching closely the new plants that have been funded.
For example, had we switched our transportation system
decades ago to electric cars, buses, trains, etc, ramped up our transmission capacity... and we had been using oil as a fuel to generate that electricity, then a massive switch to nuclear might be in the cards 20 years
before we peaked in oil.
But oil only is used in 1% of electrical generation, but 70% of oil use is for transportation; private autos, commercial and freight trucks, and aircraft.
and we don't have but a few electric cars, buses or trains and a poor grid system to transmit what we now produce.
We cannot scale a nuclear power system to offset oil decline and fuel these existing systems, period.
While we need more electrical capacity, we need more liquid fuel first and foremost. And as long as coal is cheaper than nuclear...coal it is.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."