Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary.

[kiba]

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.

If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.

Can you verify or link to anything that does.
It just doesn't seem right to me.

[wb3]

Especially since 1 properly fueled reactor can last 20 years on the medium scale. Oddly enough, a lot of the "waste" could support mini-reactors for small use.

But who wants a reactor in there back yard providing power to their home.

[caveden]

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

[MoonShadow]

Especially since 1 properly fueled reactor can last 20 years on the medium scale. Oddly enough, a lot of the "waste" could support mini-reactors for small use.

But who wants a reactor in there back yard providing power to their home.

I would, for no other reason than to limit the 'detrimental reliance' that I have upon the power company, but there are cheaper ways to accomplish this.  A reactor can be built as small as 5000 watts, and made to last for decades.  This is exactly how the continuous mission to Antartica heats and powers it's base camp buildings.  An entire city block can be powered from a reactor site the size of a quarter acre home lot.

I think that the 4S would be a huge boon, but I don't think it's going to happen before the thorium LFTR (Lifter) reactor is built, and during all of the recent news in Japan, the media completely overlooked the news that China has announced that they are going forward with a domestic thorium energy amp reactor design.

The US has fallen way behind, and will continue to do so as long as governments and NIMBY types continue to inhibit progress.

[kiba]

The US has fallen way behind, and will continue to do so as long as governments and NIMBY types continue to inhibit progress.

Humans have irrational fear of risks that they can't control. They'll happily drive their cars even though it is more dangerous than having nuclear power plants in their backyard.

[MoonShadow]

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

That data is wrong.  If all of the civil power plants in the world were replaced with PWR type uranimum reactors (i.e. everything that powers the grid, and excluding transport fuel) then the world would run out of the presently known reserves of economicly extractable uranium in about 70 years, at a continuous demand relative to current demands.  There are a lot of assumptions there, not the least of which is that we never increase in demand, nor ever find any more veins of extractable uranium.  Furthurmore, uranium isn't the only nuke fuel known, and isn't even the best one.  Thorium is a far better civic reactor fuel, but uranium reactors were demanded by governments in order to produce weapons grade plutonium.  We know now how well that all worked out.  Thorium is vastly more abundant, nearly all of it is burnable (as compared to uranium 235, which is only about 0.7% of the natural volume of uranium).  Thorium is not naturally fissionable, and must be 'transmuted' within a reactor core before fission; and transmution of thorium takes about 28 days from first nutron bombardment.  So a runaway (supercritical) reaction is, although not actually impossible, orders of magnitude slower in cascading.  (Uranium235 is naturally fissionable, and U238 is transmutable into plutonium in seconds)  So instead of a race against time to get the pumps back online like we saw in Japan, the same kind of system breakdown would have to have months of inaction before there was a threat to the containment.  And that is not even considering that reactors designed for thorium can take advantage of it's inherently safer characteristics, such as a pebble bed reactor or the LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) that intentionally uses a molten core.  If those kind of cores make it out of their containment, they seperate from the main mass core, loose critical mass (if they ever had it, an energy amp is a sub-critical reactor that uses a particle excellerator to maintain a critical reaction) and then cool off.  Which results in the liquid core cooling off and solidifing, never to move again in a thousand years.  (If a reactor has a catastrophic systems failure, like we saw in Japan, the most likely result is that the core cools off inside it's own containment by convection over a period of weeks.  If the systems cannot be brought back up in order to maintain enough of a reaction to keep the core liquid, that core is probably a loss, but it still wouldn't get out.)

[asdf]

If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.

[fergalish]

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

1. there is no presently available technology which can substitute fossil fuels.
2. fossil fuels are essential to our society and way of life.
3. cheap energy (ie. fossil fuels) and a stable society will be required to develop new energy technologies.
4. any new technology will require roughly 20 years to develop and implement on a wide enough scale to substitute fossil fuels (estimate).
5. there are, at the outside, 20 years (estimate) of easily recoverable fossil fuels left, after which there will be no more cheap energy and development of these substitutes will be impossible.

So, unless we start to develop NOW, society will crumble before we get there.   There are some developments in progress, but I keep hearing about how the oil companies are buying up any patents relating to alternative energies, eg. electric cars, high energy density batteries, etc. And government does not have a serious strategy to combat the problem.

If the Hirsch report is too long for you, read the abstract of this document:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

How does nuclear energy figure in to the Hirsch report?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

1. there is no presently available technology which can substitute fossil fuels.
2. fossil fuels are essential to our society and way of life.
3. cheap energy (ie. fossil fuels) and a stable society will be required to develop new energy technologies.
4. any new technology will require roughly 20 years to develop and implement on a wide enough scale to substitute fossil fuels (estimate).
5. there are, at the outside, 20 years (estimate) of easily recoverable fossil fuels left, after which there will be no more cheap energy and development of these substitutes will be impossible.

So, unless we start to develop NOW, society will crumble before we get there.   There are some developments in progress, but I keep hearing about how the oil companies are buying up any patents relating to alternative energies, eg. electric cars, high energy density batteries, etc. And government does not have a serious strategy to combat the problem.

If the Hirsch report is too long for you, read the abstract of this document:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.

[MoonShadow]

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

There has always been some group making such warnings for as long as I've been alive.

[kiba]

Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

Exactly, we had power before we had coal plants.
It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.

[benjamindees]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

"We aren't running out of resources we're just finding substitutes for the resources we're running out of."

"Now watch as I pretend that oil at $150/bbl is as economically beneficial as oil at $2/bbl."

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

*eat shit dude

[MoonShadow]

Rats and cockroaches tend to be the wild game available in prison.

[caveden]

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

*eat shit dude

If this someone keeps suppressing his freedoms by keeping him in captivity he'll probably starve, of course. But if s/he stops being such an asshole criminal and let him interact with decent human beings and nature, he'll probably find a way to improve his life, you bet.

About the video, it proves the point that it's silly to panic about "we only have 60 years left of nuclear fuel! OMG! How will my grandchildren do?!".
Prices will push for better uses of scarce resources, if you just let people free.

[asdf]

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and isolate a bunch of people on a planet with nothing but the resources on it.  As their food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before they starve they'll discover new sources of nourishment they didn't know existed before and they'll be better off than ever.

A bucket of water and a sandwich are insufficient to sustain one human. you're argument does not follow. Give one man a plot of land and some seeds and we might have a valid analogy.

[fergalish]

How does nuclear energy figure in to the Hirsch report?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?

Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

At about 2:25, the guy in the video seems to negate peak U.S. domestic oil production. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil:

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His log...

Also, as the price rises, yeah, hard-to-get oil becomes profitable.  But poor people will find it hard to deal with that - remember the riots in half the world in 2008 when food prices rose?  [Many causes, including high oil price]  I think many people don't realize that the green revolution was only possible thanks to fertilizers produced with fossil fuels, without which half the world's population is at risk:

Inorganic fertilizer use has also significantly supported global population growth — it has been estimated that almost half the people on the Earth are currently fed as a result of artificial nitrogen fertilizer use.[1]

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer )
At some point, oil production *will* decline, the question is whether a viable alternative is developed and implemented long enough before that to mitigate the problems peak oil and unbounded price rises will cause.  The current political climate doesn't inspire me.

Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

The problem is that right now, 2011, NOTHING will substitute oil, not even all the alternatives put together.  So first some new technology needs to be invented.  Then it needs to be mass produced and distributed BEFORE the last easily obtainable fossil energy starts to be spent on wars defending the last easily obtainable fossil energy.

Exactly, we had power before we had coal plants.
It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.

Yeah, we had power before coal, alright, slavery. Wasn't that fun for all involved. [/sarcasm]

[wb3]

Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)

[Littleshop]

Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)

A from scratch nuclear hydrogen generator could make massive amounts of hydrogen because it could use heat from the nuclear reactor directly plus electricity generated and modern metallic catalysts.  While I think battery electric vehicles will advance enough to be usable in the next few years (mostly range issues currently), hydrogen fueled cars using internal combustion engines or fuel cells could replace gasoline in many applications. 

If we put the effort into it, nuclear could displace a substantial amount of fossil fuels.  That effort is not insurmountable, but would take five to ten years with a Manhattan Project level effort.