Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[luddite]

You don't live in Canada, do you ?

Yes, I do. As Schneibster has pointed out, the Zenn car is being developed in Canada.

 

[luddite]

Here's an update on the question about oil supplies. It seems as though the alarmists are becoming more mainstream:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2196422,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study

· Output peaked in 2006 and will fall 7% a year
· Decline in gas, coal and uranium also predicted

The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.

 

[Hindmost]

Glenn, we've had this back-and-forth a few times.

I'm aware that utilities promote conservation, so you don't need to convince me of that. I have 3 responses to this.

1. I said energy availability encourages demand increases. This does not necessarily pin the blame on the utility, so you're defending an argument I didn't make. I should point out that I agree the reverse is true too, just to confuse you. I know demand increases promote the construction of power plants.

2. I don't know the ins and outs of all utilities. Every utility that I'm more familiar with is paid to promote conservation. So the fact that they promote conservation isn't enough to convince me. Are the utilities you've pointed me to actually voluntarily reducing their market without compensation?

3. Once a utility builds a power plant, it wants to recoup its investment through energy sales. Can you show me any example of a utility advertising a goal of their conservation program being the closure of a recently constructed power plant?

The funny thing is, I don't think we actually disagree. Your comment about Henry Ford I completely agreed with.

You had indicated that I made an unsupported claim, so I provided the links. What I disagree with is that availability causes demand. I believe that low price of generated electricity has caused demand. Utilities would love to shut down old inefficient plants. However, with population increases, the demand increases--back in the 80s in the US, utilities mothballed some older plants--but revived them when demand went back up.

http://energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=5371


glenn

 

[Hindmost]

PB Power, which wrote this report, build nuclear power plants. In their report they refer to "nuclear and other renewables". They have no involvement in true renewable power. The fact that they would find nuclear economical is not surprising. Wind developers will undoubtedly find that wind is far more economical. And while decomissioning costs are included in the study, disposal is not.

They report that the most economical generation option is natural gas. They also do work with oil and natural gas pipelines.

Finally, they state that the costs for nuclear and wind would remain unchanged if there were penalties from carbon use. This is false. Every generation option currently has tremendous carbon inputs. It is my understanding, not disputed by nuclear proponents, that the carbon inputs involved in generation from nuclear are significantly greater than those for wind, and also more difficult to overcome.

http://www.pbworld.co.uk/index.php?doc=53

The CERI study you quoted is frequently pointed to by nuclear promoters in Canada. Apart from that, I have no knowledge of CERI, though they are a Canadian energy consultancy. They do claim, in their own description, that their research program is guided by a board of directors named by their sponsoring organizations. These sponsors include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. They do not include corresponding proponents of renewable power.

They also state that their research pertains to "oil, natural gas, coal, and electricity economics."

Their evaluation of biomass, landfill, small hydro, large hydro, solar and geothermal is based on a report whose principal author is the Nuclear Energy Agency:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=IBC...&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

Interesting. I looked up your 3rd link and it was the same study that the second study was based on, whose principal author was the Nuclear Energy Agency.

I don't mean to discount any work done by the nuclear industry. But I don't think they can be relied on to produce reports that balance all energy sources fairly.

I am also concerned with the connections between nuclear proponents and the fossil fuel industry, as highlighted by both CERI and BP Power. As I've noted, it's the nuclear proponents in Canada who often take the side of coal as well. In Canada, the next big jump for nuclear will be the construction of two reactors to fuel tar sands extraction. Now, you may be pleased that they'll be replacing natural gas as a fuel, but they will also theoretically enable an expansion of the extraction of the dirtiest oil on the planet.



For the 4th study, Kevin Lowe already pointed out that it was for one year only in the US, during which no nuclear plants were built and none decommissioned. More importantly, the study included direct subsidies and research grants, but didn't include underwriting insurance nor spent fuel waste storage costs.

You're also mistaken about where the study said the greatest subsidies went.



Under renewables, they identified ethanol as the leading recipient of subsidies. They didn't even mention the others specifically. This suggests to me that subsidies for ethanol dwarf subsidies to other renewables. It has always been my understanding that ethanol subsidies are enormous, so this fits. Wind subsidies may be very modest, or even non-existent, for all we know. I see no basis for your conclusion that wind power is getting so much attention because it receives a high subsidy. With a difference of 18% of all subsidies for all renewables and 10% of subsidies for nuclear, and especially if you throw in insurance and storage subsidies, or building subsidies, nuclear may well come out the big loser compared to wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. We just can't tell from these conclusions.

The first report on the subsidies had additinal data from previous years--just had to look at a few links. It showed the greatest subsidies for renewables and fossil...my mistake. Nuclear was last on the list. Either way, nuclear was a very small amount. However, that all changed with:

My next post pointed out that the subsidy has changed in the US with the 2005 energy bill. It added new subsidies for nuclear--construction and operation for the first few years of the plant. This brings it inline with wind power. There is no subsidy for insurance...US utilities pay into an account that feeds the price-anderson act. It has been a profitable segment of the US govt since there have been no payouts over recent years. I have to look at what is fueling the cost of reprocessing and disposal.

If wind, solar and other renewables were truly cost competitive, the utilities would have been building them already. Wind power in the US has only taken off since the subsidy and newer technology has made it marginally competitive--it is still more expensive. I tried to provide independent study links...the CERI said it was independent...I guess they could by fibbing. However, following the energy industry for many years, their numbers fall inline with many of the stuff I have read over the years.

As far as the tar sands...that is the biggest pipe dream next to oil shale. Very difficult to extract and must be enhanced with other fossil fuels before it is refinable. Plus, the amount of reserves stated is way more than is recoverable.

glenn

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I do. As Schneibster has pointed out, the Zenn car is being developed in Canada.

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?

 

[Hindmost]

Actually, Glenn, as I said I'm not really counting on a link. I provided a link to the BC power company that targets 50% conservation reductions. It was jumped on by a number of people who said "It ain't gonna happen". Ditto my link to California's net-zero building program. I pointed to a conservative provincial study that identified vast and economical wind potential. It was ignored.

Likewise, Robinson has pointed out that building nuclear plants to replace coal plants isn't going to happen. And even you've expressed doubts for how far a nuclear renaissance can go. And that doesn't stop people from thinking it's possible.

I hope that I'm receptive to new information. That doesn't mean I'm likely, when I'm talking to dozens of respected people who say 50% reductions are entirely feasible, to accept a link to an organization saying "no it's not". Especially from a utility that would have to lay off 1/2 its workers and close 1/2 its plants and possibly cut its profits.

Any more than you're likely to accept that Luddite says 50% is possible and has a link to a BC utility when everyone you speak to says the opposite.

I'm far more likely to be engaged by real assessments of where vast amounts of power are needed and will continue to be needed in any sort of low-carbon future. "Industry" is not specific enough. What industry? Why will we need it?

A friend of mine, an engineer, recently sat down with the Greenpeace staff. He was engaged as a consultant to make their building net-zero. It was challenging because they had purchased a leaky heritage building. Their architects were saying it could not be done economically. My friend said "If you start with that attitude, it will surely never be done. If you assume it will be done, there's a good chance you'll succeed".

Conservation, renewables and nuclear each have their own sets of challenges. How much of each we end up with will hugely (but perhaps not entirely) depend on where we put our energies.

You've said recently that I seem to be resistant to seeing the viability of nuclear power. I see this as a very polarized forum, where there are nuclear enthusiasts and nuclear avoiders. And perhaps my biggest problem is that I don't understand the enthusiasm. I completely understand people thinking "we need enough power to keep people from freezing, starving, dying of heat stroke or otherwise suffering". If that must include nuclear, I'd have no argument. But all I hear are assertions. And I can dredge up assertions by the hundreds from environmental organizations that say the opposite.

So here's my question to everyone. If it were possible to feed, comfortably house and provide education and health care to a level where the majority was satisfied with the results, all without recourse to nuclear power, would you support a shift to complete renewables?

Because the question then becomes "Is it possible?" Right now, the questions are a muddle of "Is nuclear possible?", "Are renewables possible?", "What are the limits of conservation?", "Is luddite an environmentalist flake?", "Can environmentalists be trusted?", "Can the nuclear industry be trusted?", "Is nuclear economical?", "Are renewables economical?", "Is nuclear power safe?", "Aren't some chemical products more dangerous than nuclear waste?".

All of these questions are interesting to me. But I sense that they are disingenuous questions, at least to some authors. Most minds are more or less made up. There's a thrill about enormous amounts of power that's got a lot of appeal. It's that appeal that car companies cater to. "Imagine the freedom". If all I'm saying is I want to take your toys away, you're not going to like me. And you'll resist what I'm saying.

And, on the opposite side, I'll admit that I'm very skeptical about nuclear. I've said it all along. Fusion, which everyone is so excited about, seems like too much power to entrust to anyone. If you look at how well we've managed our affairs with our current energy, it's hard to feel optimistic about what we'll do to our rivers, aquifers, the air we breathe, the fish in the oceans and so on if we manage to get our hands on fusion technology.

It's funny, I don't really need links, especially for future projections. Who knows what's possible? Oh, maybe for some statistical claim that seems really off, I'd really appreciate a link. But I think most of the people here are honest about their backgrounds and knowledge. They aren't particularly dumber than folks who do studies to benefit particular interests.

So I'll grant you that in your experience, conservation from the industrial sector is severely limited. I know that. It follows what all the power workers I speak to say. I'm not sure that's at all indicative of what things will be like in a low-carbon economy. Right now, industries are being targeted in Europe. In Ontario, which has a strong industrial base, there are a lot of people saying our economy will collapse if energy prices go up. Meanwhile other analysts point out that in most of Europe and even New York State, higher energy prices have made the industries more efficient, and the economy is as strong as ever. Then people counter that by saying these places are de-industrializing. Well, so what, I say, does it matter? Are New Yorkers complaining? They have cleaner air. But even I know the answer to that. They're buying just as much stuff as ever, if not more. It's being made in China in factories powered by coal.

The question is whether all this is inevitable. Are past trends indicative of future trajectories? We are about to have an energy crisis. Either because we address global warming responsibly or because cheap oil becomes a thing of the past. In either case, we won't be able to build nuclear power plants quickly enough to completely offset the slide. I think when people can't fuel their cars, they're going to be pissed off that the government is bailing out the car companies yet again, or offering subsidies to petrochemical companies who continue to make unheard-of profits. When I speak to people about what happens when natural gas supplies can't meet demand, they respond in striking unison that the first thing any responsible government will do is to limit or suspend natural gas for industrial uses, then ration natural gas for home heating. People come first, because when push comes to shove, people protect their homes over their jobs. I cannot believe that the residential sector will be asked to make all the cuts.

So I may not be aware of all the different industries and all their different challenges, but the fact that steel and cement manufacture release a lot of CO2 (which I was aware of, by the way, I'm actually aware of most of the big industries) is strong indication to me that these industries will not survive in their present form at their present scale. We may not be building so many 50-story office towers of cement and steel that require huge cranes to build and elevators to operate once they're constructed.

I'm actually a lot more aware of the commercial sector. It's a lot more similar to the residential sector. It's also more homogeneous. I've mentioned the savings before. Again, I think when people are turning down their own lights and air conditioners, I don't think they'll be happy going to a store that has special spotlights to highlight the fish tank. Things will change.

Ralph Torrie, who is a highly respected energy consultant in Canada (the man who was the lead author of Canada's climate change strategy), spoke to me about how the utilities assess conservation potential. First they figure out what is "feasible", by which they mean "no more expensive than the least expensive generation option". Then they say they can attain 60% of that. Why? If we recognize that conservation has tremendous advantages in terms of safety, reliability, transmission costs and health and safety concerns over any generation option, why wouldn't you give it a much higher priority? Especially when we're facing a serious energy crisis.

Glenn, I respect your experience and value your opinions. I enjoy your input. If it can't singlehandedly counterbalance the input I get from my personal connections, don't be put off. There are things I doubt you'll convince me of. I doubt I'll ever convince you that nuclear power is unnecessary. That shouldn't prevent us from trading interesting information.

It is true that you won't convince me that nuke power is not needed--I actually . I still see it as the cleanest and most resonable answer to many issues. (strangely enough, even a former greenpeace exec seems to agree) However, I do know that it is not some panacea. No form of power is. Fusion would still have radiation issues although greatly reduced--and I think I will be dead before it becomes viable. However, I don't see what you mean about it being too much power to entrust to anyone. Fusion reactors would have essentially none of the safety issues related to fission and the waste problem would be reduced to a negligible amount...but not zero.


When I think that nuclear fission has a million times the energy yield of any chemical reaction, I wonder why people even think about other forms of fuel for electrical power. As for safety, well 40 years of safe operation, new passive safety features and most important--inherent safe fuel...it is designed to survive a worst case accident passively.

As I have indicated, it is only a combination of all types of energy that is going to get us out of the problem...I don't expect nuclear to replace coal...I expect coal techology to improve. Most problems are engineering, but we aren't engineering stuff quickly. IN the US, we could start to build about 20 nuclear plants at most right now. This would push industry to its limits I would imagine. New equipment would all have to be qualified as most of it would be new. (I am talking about control systems) This all is going to take time and engineering.

I believe conservation can eliminate much of the waste. The MIT study seems reasonable since it indicated about a 28% reduction...without having to sacrifice economic growth and lifestyle issues that people resist. I am all for it.

As far as the energy crisis...I agree with what you say...there is going to be a big issue. And maybe soon, which I interpret as about 20 years.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

this is a pro-nuke site, but I think this is why nuclear is considered carbon neutral. Through it life-cycle, it produced less C02 than all others...but it may be biased--however, they indicate it is conservative. (it does require centrifugal enrichment which I don't think is available in the US.) I will have to check.



This is from a fuel loading at a nuke plant...the size of the reactor is so small and will produce enough electricity for 1.5 million people. By the way...the reactor is under water...tough to see since it is so clean.

A nuclear fuel pellet contains a lot of energy

One uranium nuclear fuel pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal; or 149 gallons of oil, as much oil as fits in three 50 gallon drums; or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. .....
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/waste_home.htm​

I am enjoying our exchange as well. I went into nuclear power because I was concerned about environmental issues. It's also kinda nifty if you ask me.

glenn

I am fairly sure the French are just laughing at others that talk about energy problems.

 

[luddite]

(strangely enough, even a former greenpeace exec seems to agree)

Yes, well, what to say about Patrick Moore.

This is what the man says about environmentalists:

The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human

That's okay, he's entitled to his opinion. But then he goes on to call himself a "lifelong environmentalist". He gets paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute and by the lumber industry to say that building nuclear power plants and burning wood are appropriate ways of addressing global warming. For these purposes, he's happy to call himself an environmentalist who hates environmentalists.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651
http://josephbergeron.com/Patrick_Moore_Interview.pdf

But then, he also says that global warming will be good because it will increase crop yields. And then he expresses doubts about whether global warming is anthropogenic in nature.

I think the man is a wingnut. I have much more respect for people like Tim Flannery and James Lovelock, who promote nuclear power but are really and truly concerned about the state of the planet, and aren't on the payroll of industries regarded as dangerous or harmful by other people who call themselves environmentalists. The difference, of course, is that Flannery and Lovelock see nuclear power as a regrettable necessity to be limited by maximizing the potential from safer renewables and conservation.

 

[luddite]

However, I don't see what you mean about it being too much power to entrust to anyone. Fusion reactors would have essentially none of the safety issues related to fission and the waste problem would be reduced to a negligible amount...but not zero.

When I think that nuclear fission has a million times the energy yield of any chemical reaction, I wonder why people even think about other forms of fuel for electrical power. As for safety, well 40 years of safe operation, new passive safety features and most important--inherent safe fuel...it is designed to survive a worst case accident passively.

I'm not worried about safety or waste. In that respect, fusion is definitely an improvement on fission.

It's the same message I've had for a long time. There's just been a study done about how we're using up our minerals. We're depleting the Oglalla Aquifer. The Colorado River doesn't reach the ocean anymore. We're tearing up entire mountains. We're poisoning rivers with mercury. We're destroying traditional fisheries that have been productive for centuries. We are threatening many resources that are supposed to be renewable, but cannot withstand the current assault.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3086
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42483/story.htm

Cheap energy hasn't just threatened the climate, it is intrinsically connected to overfishing and overwatering and resource depletion. If we don't address the connection between these things, if we just solve the energy problem, we're likely to be fighting more of these life-and-death battles in the future.

So I'd rather see a future vision that is based on sustainability. This isn't incompatible with fusion. But neither is it necessary to have as much power as fusion promises if we're going to manage all the Earth's resources in a sustainable way. And I see every indication that if we have power to spare, we'll be tempted to use it in senseless and destructive ways. So I don't see much point in investing in the necessary research.

 

[luddite]

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?

I don't think it has ever gone down to 45 degrees below zero celsius here. Most of Canada's population is hunkered down next to the US border, with climate very similar to that of the northern US. So maybe electric cars are a no-go in remote northern communities, but they'll do fine for most of us.

They also have interesting potential for load levelling. You can juice up your car at night. In the daytime, if there's a demand spike, you can actually sell excess energy to the utility as a profit. The Rocky Mountain Institute did a study that indicated that this could be economically viable even today if the infrastructure was in place (ie, the increased cost of an electric car would be more than offset by the profitability of its load-leveling capacity).

 

[luddite]

If wind, solar and other renewables were truly cost competitive, the utilities would have been building them already.

In the past, they could not compete with coal and hydro. I know in Canada, there was an interest in promoting nuclear technology with the hope that we could sell it. So AECL was actively encouraged in a way that wind was not. When I was a kid, there was a national pride associated with the CANDUs. We left the national pride for wind turbines to the Danes. So now we buy Danish wind turbines in Canada. The CANDU program is still hobbling along with government subsidy, but hasn't sold a thing in decades anywhere. Not even in Canada.

Power workers don't like wind. They like centralized power plants with union labour. I have a few associates who are labour leaders with power unions. One of them now envisions a meeting of the minds between unions and environmentalists. He is unusual among Ontario power workers in that he opposes new nuclear. But he can't imagine isolated wind turbines. He envisions wind farms or community power with unionized support structures. We're talking. I predict we'll come to some sort of shared understanding.

The utilities themselves may have also preferred building larger power plants than dickering with the planning and permitting of a hundred scattered wind sites.

We're running out of hydro possibilities. Coal has a bad name. I think renewables might be more promising today. If we take coal offline, power at peak will suddenly get very expensive. Solar will start to look good, too.

 

[Corsair 115]

Do you know what 45 degres C below zero does to a battery ?

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of -45° C days in southern Ontario. In the prairies or up north, that's a different story.

 

[luddite]

I am enjoying our exchange as well. I went into nuclear power because I was concerned about environmental issues. It's also kinda nifty if you ask me.

It's kinda nifty if you ask me too.

A couple decades ago, I thought it was really nifty to have a disposable lifestyle. In my calculation, it left more time for my children. Gradually, I've come to realize that disposable is harmful and have gained an appreciation for enduring things. Doesn't mean I don't recognize the nifty aspects of just being able to chuck things away.

There's something nifty about grabbing your car and zooming off. There's something nifty about driving past the speed limit with your stereo blaring while you attempt to have a conversation on your cell phone. There's something profoundly nifty and difficult to give up about enjoying mangos year-round in Canada.

So with nuclear. Sure it's nifty. But on the whole, I think we would be better off with less of it rather than more.

So I guess you could think of nuclear power as the ripe juicy mango that's best appreciated rarely

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it has ever gone down to 45 degrees below zero celsius here. Most of Canada's population is hunkered down next to the US border, with climate very similar to that of the northern US. So maybe electric cars are a no-go in remote northern communities, but they'll do fine for most of us.

REMOTE NOTHERN COMMUNITIES ???

That's insulting. There are 150,000 people in Saguenay, and over 300,000 people in other cities and villages around. That's not NYC, but it's not Shefferville, either.

And during winter it's not rare that it drops below 30, and once in a while, below 40. And I'm not talking about wind, yet.

With gasoline engines, at least the battery charges up when the motor is running. You don't have that luxury with an electric car. If it doesn't start, it won't.

 

[luddite]

REMOTE NOTHERN COMMUNITIES ???

That's insulting. There are 150,000 people in Saguenay, and over 300,000 people in other cities and villages around. That's not NYC, but it's not Shefferville, either.

And during winter it's not rare that it drops below 30, and once in a while, below 40. And I'm not talking about wind, yet.

With gasoline engines, at least the battery charges up when the motor is running. You don't have that luxury with an electric car. If it doesn't start, it won't.

Sorry. You're right.

And all you're saying is that there will necessarily be a market for non-electric vehicles until and unless some technological challenges are overcome. I can agree with that.

Still, without any mention of just how much of Canada would not be able to use electric cars, there is a large chunk that would, including most of the urban concentrations. Most of the rest of the world could also benefit from electric cars. I think that's the future direction of cars even though, as you say, there will be a residual need for some non-electrics.

 

[Lonewulf]

The thing is, most methods of transportation will take you long distances. Just letting your vehicle recharge overnight is... well... I don't see it working for most people, to be honest. Truckers probably won't like that, for instance, and that's where a lot of fuel gets pumped into, as well as airplanes. (In fact, jet travel takes up far more fuel than any vehicle on the ground, from what I understand).

With super/ultra capacitors... maybe. But I'm dubious.

 

[Hindmost]

It's kinda nifty if you ask me too.

A couple decades ago, I thought it was really nifty to have a disposable lifestyle. In my calculation, it left more time for my children. Gradually, I've come to realize that disposable is harmful and have gained an appreciation for enduring things. Doesn't mean I don't recognize the nifty aspects of just being able to chuck things away.

There's something nifty about grabbing your car and zooming off. There's something nifty about driving past the speed limit with your stereo blaring while you attempt to have a conversation on your cell phone. There's something profoundly nifty and difficult to give up about enjoying mangos year-round in Canada.

So with nuclear. Sure it's nifty. But on the whole, I think we would be better off with less of it rather than more.

So I guess you could think of nuclear power as the ripe juicy mango that's best appreciated rarely

HMmmmmm...trying to get a false analogy (the car thingy) past someone on a skeptics forum....shame......

glenn

 

[luddite]

The thing is, most methods of transportation will take you long distances. Just letting your vehicle recharge overnight is... well... I don't see it working for most people, to be honest. Truckers probably won't like that, for instance, and that's where a lot of fuel gets pumped into, as well as airplanes. (In fact, jet travel takes up far more fuel than any vehicle on the ground, from what I understand).

With super/ultra capacitors... maybe. But I'm dubious.

Monbiot goes into transportation in his book "Heat". It's by no means authoritative, but he talks about having service stations with batteries to pop in in exchange for yours if it gets depleted. Another option would be to reserve electric cars for commuting and short hauls. That's what most driving is for anyway.

When I agreed with Schneibster that the future of cars was electric, I didn't mean to extend this idea to trucks as well. If you want my opinion, of which I think many people are weary, I would suggest we go to trains for a lot of hauling. There are great advances in container transport on trains. Reductions in the distances we moved stuff would be a good idea too. I'm not proposing centralized planning. But even with recent fuel price increases, transportation is cheap. Specifically, it is not paying for the damage it causes. If it did, we might choose not to transport toothpaste transcontinentally. We might not choose to bring in disposable diapers from China. A lot of things that used to be manufactured locally before the age of cheap oil will be manufactured locally again.

Monbiot also goes into the challenges of aviation and comes up with nada. Well, some limited ideas. But mostly, he sees the days of flying coming to a rapid end.

I went to a conference in the spring where a representative from the school of aviation at the University of Toronto spoke about the future of aviation. He mentioned Monbiot's book and praised its basic assumptions (like Canada has to cut emissions by 94%, which is relevant for the calculation below), but suggested that there was a sustainable future for aviation. Basically, if we throw massive public subsidies into the aviation, he says, we can hope to make it "sustainable" by which he means it will continue to burn the same amount of fossil fuels while moving ever more people around according to projections based on historical growth. This would require changing the way planes are made and major airport rebuilds to handle these giant flying triangular hulks. I pointed out to him that if aviation maintains the same 3 1/2% of current emissions it does now, that will leave us with 2 1/2% of today's levels for all other uses - cars, trains, space heating, industry, metal production for things like, oh, airplanes, for example. He had no answer except that we would find a way because people like to fly. If you consider that emissions from airplanes are more significant because they are higher up, we could allocate pretty much all our carbon for airplanes. Again, I think there are much more productive avenues for public funding.

I found this idea the hardest to envision - a future where emissions from flying were primarily reduced by enormous reductions in flights. But I have yet to meet anyone with a smart solution. The best alternative I've heard is dirigibles, but they are not the same. They are much bigger and slower. Not the kind of thing you pop over for a meeting on. Not the kind of thing you take to Australia for a one-week vacation. So if this is true, it suggests big changes not only for aviation, but for tourism, hotels, conference centers, etc.

We could go to nuclear planes. This is the nuclear forum, after all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nuclear planes could work, yeah. If we have subs and space probes that run on nuclear power, that might just be a possibility.

 

[Lonewulf]

I want to return to the previous point that Kevin_Lowe and Luddite both made, about the "hidden costs" of Nuclear Power Plants. I showed someone that was knowledgeable on the subject in the BAUT Forum (777_geek) this thread, and he had this to say:

Hmm. That poster does seem to be slightly more educated than the average anti-nuclear poster, but that is of course not saying much. All cost studies for Generation III+ include the full life cycle costs, including decomissioning and spent fuel storage.

A lot of the arguments that these are external costs are based around the myth that they cannot be done and hence quantified.

Spent fuel handling and decomissioning costs are included in the cost of the electricity in the US. There is however a lawsuit going on against the federal government for wasting it. That is not the operators' fault.

I then asked if I had his permission to post this, and he brought up that people here would probably like some other source.

http://www.externe.info/

Have fun.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry. You're right.

And all you're saying is that there will necessarily be a market for non-electric vehicles until and unless some technological challenges are overcome. I can agree with that.

Unfortunately, I'd rather work with the technologies we know we can use, not those we speculate we might eventually have.

And there's also the issue of how much distance you can cover in an electric, and if the thing's going to sell on the market if it doesn't cover much...