73 comments on UK Energy Descent Continues
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
73 comments on UK Energy Descent Continues
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Nuclear is unsustainable and so is a bad option (since it merely increases dependence on unsustainable fuels), unless nuclear is used only as a stepping stone to sustainable energy production.
Tony
By your definition of sustainable, even solar power isn't sustainable cos one day the sun will implode and kill us all.
Only it will occur in a very very long time.
Likewise, nuclear power has hundreds of years worth of extractable reserves of uranium and beyond that Molten Salt thorium breeder reactors have thousands of years worth of fuel in the ground.
Thats good enough for me.
Anyone that truely believes that there is only 80 years worth of Uranium reserves left is guilt of some fairly wooly thinking (that and unquestioning belief in the report that claimed this)
Andy
Would you like to give verifiable calculations on extraction rates of uranium, over the next 80 years? Or should we build up nuclear on an assumption?
You're right that the timescales are important, in the definition of sustainable, but I think we need to be very clear that the timescales projected are real, before plunging into a course of action. I don't think any fuel with a lifetime of less than 150 years warrants consideration, considering how we've used another wonder fuel over the last 150 years.
I haven't heard of molten salt thorium breeder reactors before; how many are operating, at present?
No I wouldn't. Don't be lazy go, and look the extraction rates up for yourself.
What nonsense is this? Look around you. The entire world has been built on cheap oil. Are you suggesting that we should never have bothered with oil because it was "only" going to last 150-200 years.
And in case you hadn't noticed nuclear power stations are only good for approx 50 years of operation anyway. So if the fuel will last longer than the projected life of the power station then it would be entirely sensible to construct it.
Sheesh, I sometimes wonder why I bother commenting here.
As someone once said. "sounds like this bloke started with a conclusion and studiously avoided any facts that might have contradicted his position"
Andy