[rowante]

No not another "fascist" site! Just another independant media site.

Some good analysis

It contains this link , which is a critique of peak oil written by a geologist.

[Guest]

This struck me as particularly true:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')imitations on the energy used by our technological civilization are not imposed by finite resources but by social and political attitudes.

[Kenny]

Why is nuclear unlimited? Fissionable uranium 235 is not all that plentiful. A masive effort to add capacity from standard nuclear reactors would exhaust all known supplies within a decade or two.

What you're left with is the possibility of using fast breeder reactors to convert plentiful U238 into Plutonium 239 which can then be used for nuclear reactors. Manufacturing the levels of Plutonium 239 necessary to fuel future nuclear reactors would create a global political and environmental nightmare.

[RobertEspy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kenny', 'W')hat you're left with is the possibility of using fast breeder reactors to convert plentiful U238 into Plutonium 239 which can then be used for nuclear reactors. Manufacturing the levels of Plutonium 239 necessary to fuel future nuclear reactors would create a global political and environmental nightmare.

[RobertEspy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kenny', 'W')hy is nuclear unlimited? Fissionable uranium 235 is not all that plentiful. A masive effort to add capacity from standard nuclear reactors would exhaust all known supplies within a decade or two.

[Kenny]

Energy costs are important too. The harder-to-get-at uranium may not be worth getting if finding and processing it takes more energy than is ultimtely recoverable from fission.

[RobertEspy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kenny', 'E')nergy costs are important too. The harder-to-get-at uranium may not be worth getting if finding and processing it takes more energy than is ultimtely recoverable from fission.

[Robert Espy]

Addendum

Currently, yellowcake sells for $16.00 per pound. Lets ignore that most of that pound could be reprocessed into plutonium (a very righteous fuel all by itself) and just look at the U235 aspect.

Each pound of yellowcake (natural uranium-oxide yields .007 pounds of U235. That’s roughly $2285 per pound of unrefined fuel. Since we’re only talking raw availability here, I’ll ignore the refining costs – which is best since it really isn’t necessary to refine it out (I think – correct me if I’m wrong but do so in a different thread as this one is about raw availability).

So when I consider that even using today’s inefficient technology, each pound of U235 is the energy equivalent of about one million gallons of gasoline, I’m not too worried about the mining costs even at 100 times the price.

[Atr0p0s]

Uranium follows similar supply and demand curves to oil. Though it may run out later, it will run out, ruling it out as a true alternative to oil.

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[Robert Espy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Atr0p0s', 'U')ranium follows similar supply and demand curves to oil. Though it may run out later, it will run out, ruling it out as a true alternative to oil.

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[Atr0p0s]

Don't be nasty. I've kept my patience with you, even though I know your theories are unrealistic and largely unprecedented. If someone on the other team makes a bad point, you wrap it up neatly and fold it away. Don't spit it back in their face.

[RobertEspy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Atr0p0s', 'D')on't be nasty. I've kept my patience with you, even though I know your theories are unrealistic and largely unprecedented. If someone on the other team makes a bad point, you wrap it up neatly and fold it away. Don't spit it back in their face.

[Atr0p0s]

Maybe it's that I associate you with idealists like listentome. But I think it's more the fact that you stress the possibility of a stable economy fueld by alternative energy sources becoming implemented before we hit an oil decline.

[Robert Espy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Atr0p0s', 'M')aybe it's that I associate you with idealists like listentome.

But I think it's more the fact that you stress the possibility of a stable economy fueld by alternative energy sources becoming implemented before we hit an oil decline.

[Pops]

Robert, nukes may in fact be an alternative. I for one have 3 problems with that as a solution – public acceptance, waste and deployment.

If you accept that a peak is near rather than far, the time to convince the public IMHO is prohibitive considering the time required to build what I assume would be a large number of plants. The cost would be huge at today’s energy prices and by the time people were convinced that they needed alternatives the cost would be incredible – remember we’re at war.

And when it comes to waste – NIMBY.

Pops

[Robert Espy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'R')obert, nukes may in fact be an alternative. I for one have 3 problems with that as a solution – public acceptance, waste and deployment.

If you accept that a peak is near rather than far, the time to convince the public IMHO is prohibitive considering the time required to build what I assume would be a large number of plants. The cost would be huge at today’s energy prices and by the time people were convinced that they needed alternatives the cost would be incredible – remember we’re at war.

And when it comes to waste – NIMBY.

Pops

[Pops]

Robert, I don’t know much about nuke power, except what we use now makes nasty stuff that will be around long after we’ve blasted ourselves into oblivion, and we haven't been able to wish that away. I think the average Joe thinks about the same. I assume breeders would make Joe even more afraid.

The article stated:
“If the environmental problems and perceptions surrounding nuclear power plants cannot be overcome, there is no known resource or technology which can supply energy for the civilization of the future."

I said:
“If you accept that a peak is near rather than far, the time to convince the public IMHO is prohibitive considering the time required to build what I assume would be a large number of plants.”

Again it may be the solution, but my point is that inertia could take us past the point where that solution is attainable due to increasing costs of production.

Snip…
“Hubbert (1969, p. 228) predicted that the failure to make the transition from burner to breeder reactors would constitute “one of the major disasters in human history”.

Pops

[OilWatch]

You know why this doesn't make any sense?

It's saying the ramifications of peak oil are more attractive than nuclear plants? That's a load of hooey.

If, like some of the most hardcore peak oilests say, it will destroy civilization, than the majority will be more than willing to accept the potential consequences of nuclear plants.

That is one lame duck argument against why nukes won't be used.

[Pops]

OilWatch, I don’t think I said, “no oil is better than nukes”.

My point is it will be a hard sell because of the public perception and it must happen soon or it won’t happen.

Pops

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'O')ilWatch, I don’t think I said, “no oil is better than nukes”.

My point is it will be a hard sell because of the public perception and it must happen soon or it won’t happen.

Pops