144 comments on Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
144 comments on Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
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
If we begin with the premise that we shall not exceed 450ppm co2, we need to construct a trajectory that keeps that from happening.
We need a moratorium on new coal plants and a phase out of exising ones. Combined with serious conservation, we take care of the deficit for awhile with solar, wind, and some biofuels. If nuclear is excluded, the real challenge is how do we maintain the minimum necessary baseload to backstop the intermittent renewable.
Yes, there is drought, but does that mean nuclear is not an option everywhere. Will the whole world be in drought? I don't think so but would like to see some projections
Further, if we can fall back on sequestered coal, are there water issues there, too.
Honestly, is it all just hopeless?
No, it is not hopeless. Once people understand the seriousness of the situation and the viable options, nuclear will not be excluded. It will become the world's primary energy source. Today's objections to nuclear do not have strong factual foundations. Once the crisis hits, society will make the tradeoffs in favor of preserving civilization.
It may be a bit late by then. It takes 10 years from the inception until a nuclear powerplant produces electricity. By the time we truly feel the crisis, we'll be so for into the slope that we won't be able to get our act together any longer.
That's old, non crisis, thinking. That assumes all the opponents can tie up the permitting for years and delay the construction. Using standard designs, I have heard that they could build the plants and go into operation in about three years. If we could break through all the nimby and obstructionist objections in permitting, that should not take more than a few years. We could build a lot of plants in 10-20 years if we gave it the urgency and resources of a world war. Just look at the hundreds of billions, soon to be trillions, the US has wasted on Iraq and that was not important for its national security. If the French can do it so can the US.
If China is complete one coal plant every week, can't we finish one nuclear plant every month?
Large scale coal generators also require major infrastructure as well---especially the titanic trains coming in with the astonishing quantities of coal, and the trains going out to dump the fly ash waste into non-sequestered unsound 'storage' as pounds of crap with infinite half-lives.
And yet---when there's motivation they get done.
I'm also pro-wind as well. But we need to be realistic about the import of the laws of physics and geophysical facts, with oil, gas, coal, wind, biofuels and nuclear.
Of them all, so far nuclear and wind seem to have the least bad downsides by basic physics, and some modest (wind) to major (nuclear) potential.
Apparently we would need about 10,000 reactors (about 20 times what we have now) to supply the equivalent of the world's total current energy consumption, a large but not unimaginable number. We could take a generation or two to build them. The world could survive with a lot less than the current level of energy consumption and still avoid a catastrophic die-off that would wreck the world.
These reactors would power the current electrical grid but also most transportation and the chemical/fertilizer industry using the remaining low grade hydrocarbon feed stocks. It would take a monumental construction task but does not seem out of the realm of possibility, if the world put in a World War II level effort for 20 years.
Wherefore the popularity of defeatism? We have no reason to suspect that it will be 'too late,' whatever that means.
Unless you really are trying to start yet another death cult.