144 comments on Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- 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
I said "yet".
I personally think pebble-bed reactors have a lot of potential, and I'm optimistic about fusion by the end of the century.
However I wouldn't be the first one to point out that there are problems getting fission to scale up with current technology within a useful time-frame.
And you do actually have to get the plants built in a real-world physical location, with the agreement of the local planning authorities. I don't think these are insurmountable challenges - just challenges.
I'm more sympathetic to nuclear than my comment might have indicated - my real thrust was to get across that people don't like to admit that we are dependant on coal because it has a lot of useful characteristics(technically simple, cheap, easy to build,baseload power), and it's hard to find something else to replace it.
Yes it has some horrible side effects. But if it didn't have a lot going for it we wouldn't have become addicted to it in the first place.
My point is that the first step to kicking an addiction is to admit you are addicted. Admit that coal is filling a need, be honest about the dimensions of that need. Then look for alternatives.
If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?
"I personally think pebble-bed reactors have a lot of potential, and I'm optimistic about fusion by the end of the century."
As am I (especially once the military gets out of research and we can concentrate on decreasing the half-life of spent fuels instead of Mt of TNT).
However, where are we going to get the helium from if we are past peak NG? Especially if we don't develop Thorium reactors (i.e. really good technology for making alpha particle streams).
Waste is still quite a problem for HTGRs, as the pebbles need some pretty harsh treatment (similar to MOX rods, as I understand it) to be able to be put into Synrock.
Please look at IEC fusion, whose lead researcher is Dr. Robert Bussrad, we may know by the end of this decade if he has as reactor design @ proof of concept.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiHsSAS_SQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBfsq80EgOs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/12/171119/055
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf