Why Nuclear Power is a Non-Response to Peak Oil -

[4dsc]

Now here's an interesting article..

Now, with peak oil breathing down politicians necks, nuclear power has one again emerged from its coffin with a faintly disturbing twinkle in its eye, some referring, messianically, to nuclear power’s ‘Second Coming’. Even a number of previously reliable environmentalists are starting to argue that nuclear power is an option again, some moved to say so by Lovelock’s recent gloom-fest book “The Revenge of Gaia”, which is alarmingly appearing in lots of places as somehow being the definitive argument for nuclear power. Over the next few days I want to sharpen up a fresh stake and see if we can’t finish off this evil monster once and for all.

FEASTA The best place to start is an excellent new briefing paper that has just been produced by FEASTA in Dublin, penned by David Fleming. I was in Dublin for its launch, which featured an excellent lecture by David, a feeble pro-nuclear response by John McGuirk from a right-wing think tank (surely an oxymoron there) called the Freedom Institute (I can almost smell the Margaret Thatcher posters from here…) and Green MEP Nuala Ahern. The paper, called “Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be A Major Energy Source”, sets out clearly what nuclear power is, and the reasons as to why it is not a response to peak oil. It can be downloaded from the FEASTA website for free, and it highly recommended.

Many of the points I will raise over the next few days are drawn from David’s analysis. The first argument, which I will explore tomorrow is that fact that any chance of a co-ordinated Powerdown response will effectively be scuppered once we commit to a new nuclear programme… clearly something of a ‘grave’ concern to Transition Culture regulars…. don’t miss that ‘tomb’morrow…

http://transitionculture.org/?p=307

http://transitionculture.org/?p=312

http://transitionculture.org/?p=305

http://transitionculture.org/?p=320

http://transitionculture.org/?p=322

[Massacure]

1. It's not a replacement for oil but it is a replacement for COAL.

Coal being the worst fossil fuel there is.

[pansypoo53219]

2. the problem is the grid.

we could probably eliminate the need for coal and nuke power if we had solar cells in each home. add small windmills for imes you need it. whatever. the grid is not our friend.

[klyon]

6. I agree. If we can run calculators off the light bulb on my desk,

we should be able to run small engine cars off the sun. Why do we need cars that go 180 miles per hour or monster military transports to go to the store. We need to rethink life.

[hunter]

12. The grid is very much our friend.

If you think nuclear power is bad, lead-acid batteries are worse.

An electric utility grid in urban and suburban areas greatly enhances the utility of solar, wind, and other "alternative" energy sources.

[NNadir]

3. Interesting to whom?

Maybe people who already know nothing and wish to reinforce the fact that they know nothing will find this site "interesting."

On the other hand, people who actually know something about energy find it a rather dull rehashing of the phrases "Chernobyl, Greenpeace..." and so on.

What I find "interesting" is that a peak oiler whose entire contention is that "we're all going to die without our" (filthy) "oil" can be worried about so called "nuclear waste."

The fact is that it is oil waste that kills, fossil fuel waste that kills. And still we get the tired wimpy, whiny cry... "Peak Oil...Peak Oil...Peak Oil..."

The problem is not the emergency (which is climate change, not peak oil) has no solution. The problem is that so many dumb people are shouting while the people who do know what to do, act.

[Skink]

4. The problem isn't peak oil the problem is an abundance of oil.

[NNadir]

5. Exactly.

[4dsc]

7. The problem is

If you believe nuclear waste is not a problem, perhaps we can store it at your house..

What I find "interesting" is that a peak oiler whose entire contention is that "we're all going to die without our" (filthy) "oil"

The world will be a different place with less oil and a greatly different place with alot less oil.. No amount of nuclear energy is going to change that fact.. Your contention about "peak oiler" is misplaced and wrought with misinformation!

But wasn't you that claimed you expected BILLIONS of people would die as a result of peak oil and its ramifications??

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[index555]

10. something we can do about the waste

Ref: Scientific American , Dec 2005 "smarter use of nuclear waste"
According to this article we can eliminate %98(!) of the nuclear waste by reprocessing and reusing it.
not only that but the final unusable waste would be of isotopes that would decay to background levels in a few hundred years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.(!!) in another 50 years we might even find a use for that.(?)
This along with replacing our current nuclear plants with smaller , current "inherently self limiting" designs as opposed to the 30-40 year old designs we have now(which are not self-limiting)
For those who don't know, an "inherently self-limiting reactor" is designed so that there is no way for it to run out of control or melt down.
If it gets too hot , the reaction slows down, causing it to cool.
even in total, catastrophic loss of coolant , the reaction shuts down, the reason that the reactors are smaller is so that they can radiate sufficient excess heat to the outside to prevent anything from melting. they are designed in such a way that"more heat=slower reactions"
They are designed not to NEED any emergency backup system {that could possibly fail, as evidenced by the events in Sweden)
These "slow-down", and "shut-down" features are built in to the design , and do not rely on control rod position or any mechanical system (such as cooling pumps)which could fail, or be accidentally(or deliberately) be set or controlled improperly .
These designs now exist, however it has been the incredibly vocal opposition of the "no nukes" people that has prevented them from being built.

As far as other alternative power sources are concerned? WE NEED TO INVEST FAR MORE IN EVERY ONE OF THEM! our energy problem is not simple and there is no simple solution to it.
We also need to PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION!
I read an article(I believe it was on MSN) about a group of architects who were designing "green" energy efficient buildings for the reconstruction or New Orleans, THIS IS GREAT! We can (if we have the determination) turn the tragedy into a triumph by rebuilding GREEN! think of the advantages of reducing the energy bills of the poor residents there by as much as %75.
not to mention the reduced energy consumption overall.

I reject the arguments of the extreme "no-nukes is good nukes" bunch , while I don't think nuclear is the whole solution,intelligently used it IS part of the solution.

[Odin2005]

11. The waste can be recycled.

[hunter]

13. The problem is that replacing oil with coal is trivial.

That's what's going to kill us.

Everything we do with oil is quite easily done with coal but at the cost of much greater carbon dioxide production and other environmental damages.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Oh Gods, not Feasta.

Somewhere between Greenpeace and sortir du nuclear on the scale of certain ecological death.

Without following the links, I'm guessing they want just 40 years to turn the world into a solar nivarna.

Meanwhile, hold your breath.

[drfresh]

14. Nuclear power is a start

What else is going to meet our huge energy demands in the short term? Nuclear power isn't a perfect technology, but at least it doesn't emit pollution and greenhouse gasses into the air. We do need a long-term place to house the radioactive waste. But its better than just pumping waste right into the atmosphere.

I'd be interested in knowing how many deaths and environmental problems have been caused by nuclear power, compared to all the fossil fuel burning plants. Compared to coal/oil, right now I think nuclear fission offers a MUCH better solution for a country that is demanding so much energy. Of course we need to build clean renewable plants at the same time, and eventually make our way towards them. I also like the idea of generating clean energy at the home, eg solar cells.