Finite Resources - investment or collapse?

[rmark]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[al_bundy]

there is enough oil in the continental US to meet our needs for centuries. ANWR and the Rocky Mountains have more oil than Saudi Arabia. there is also the eastern gulf of mexico and the continental shelf. All these areas are politically off limits and the same people that harp about peak oil fight against opening these areas to oil extraction.

 

[samclem]

rmark,

- That's an interesiting link, lots of info that helps put the CO2 debate into perspective. Questions:
-- To know if it is legit, we'd need to know who is taking credit for the info on that page (including the numbers) --it's hard to tell from the URL or anything else on the page. So, it raises a flag concerning credibility. Solid sources are listed at the end--but I haven't done the sleuthing to check them out.
-- Even if human contributions to total CO2 are tiny, and even if CO2 itself is swamped by the warming effect of water vapor, that doesn't necessarily mean that anthropogenic CO2 isn't producing every bit of the warming we've seen (the tiny extra amount could be having an effect out of proportion to it's quantity due to feedback mechanisms we don't understand, etc. ) Still, it seems that other, simpler explanations are more liely to be right in this case. Occam's razor and all . . .

**********************
From the link:
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics: 0.28%

********************

 

[spideyrdpd]

Well when the oil runs out they wont have to worry about global warming so much

Ah I remember (faintly) 30 yrs ago in high school having the same discussion. Be an owl give a hoot and dont pollute and dont forget to turn the lights off.

Maybe they will finally get nuclear fission or is it fussion and really screw things up ?

 

[samclem]

Fusion is still a long way off (well, we have it and it works great, but just in warheads/bombs)

Fission: Works great, works with our present power supply infrastructure, fuel cost is low (largely due to govt "subsidies," since I believe fuel is still largely a byproduct of military processing/enrichment). New reactor designs can be made entirely meltdown-proof and very proliferation-resistant (pebble-bed reactors). Pollution is thermal (which it shares with most power producton means, even, indirectly, solar) and radioactive waste (which is long-lived, but all in one spot and easily collected compared to hydrocarbon exhaust products). If the environmental movement is really serious about doing something in the short term about CO2 emissions, they'll push for more nuclear plants. Some moderate voices in the movement are already doing so.

 

[bosco]

Fusion is still a long way off (well, we have it and it works great, but just in warheads/bombs)

Fission: Works great, works with our present power supply infrastructure, fuel cost is low (largely due to govt "subsidies," since I believe fuel is still largely a byproduct of military processing/enrichment). New reactor designs can be made entirely meltdown-proof and very proliferation-resistant (pebble-bed reactors). Pollution is thermal (which it shares with most power producton means, even, indirectly, solar) and radioactive waste (which is long-lived, but all in one spot and easily collected compared to hydrocarbon exhaust products). If the environmental movement is really serious about doing something in the short term about CO2 emissions, they'll push for more nuclear plants. Some moderate voices in the movement are already doing so.

of course there is the small problem of what to do with the waste, which has a half-life in thousands of years. The best solution that has been come up with so far is to bury it and hope that the burial site is geologically stable and that future centuries will retain records of where it is.

Also, the cost of decommissioning these things is very high, and they only have a 25-30 year life. Most just sit there not decommisioned (terrorist targets?), a nice fiscal present to future generations.

When proponents say they are cheap, they conveniently forget these factors.

Aside from the waste issues, however, they are much easier on air quality. But like all power generation except solar and hydro, they create thermal pollution due to the fact that they require a temperature differential to work. All they really are is nuclear-powered boilers.

 

[Gumby]

Also, the cost of decommissioning these things is very high, and they only have a 25-30 year life. 

True about the cost of decommissioning.  But consider that many of the US nuclear plants have recently obtained 20-year license extensions from the NRC and most of the remainder are expected to apply for extensions shortly.  Continued extensions when these are up are not entirely out of the question.

With respect to the high level waste, if we would reprocess our spent fuel (as the French do) we could greatly reduce the volume of waste.  The vast majority of the uranium in a spent fuel rod is still there -- the buildup of fission products just makes it impossible to use the remaining uranium.  Reprocessing separates the fission products and reuses the uranium.  Only the fission products then need to be stored.

The safest place to put high level waste is in dry storage at Yucca Mountain, where it can be heavily guarded.  Leaving it in spent fuel pools at reactor sites around the country is not the preferred option.

 

[samclem]

of course there is the small problem of what to do with the waste, which has a half-life in thousands of years. The best solution that has been come up with so far is to bury it and hope that the burial site is geologically stable and that future centuries will retain records of where it is.

Also, the cost of decommissioning these things is very high, and they only have a 25-30 year life. Most just sit there not decommisioned (terrorist targets?), a nice fiscal present to future generations.

When proponents say they are cheap, they conveniently forget these factors.

Aside from the waste issues, however, they are much easier on air quality. But like all power generation except solar and hydro, they create thermal pollution due to the fact that they require a temperature differential to work. All they really are is nuclear-powered boilers.

The waste disposal issue is not so much a technical one but a political one. Encasement of the higher-level waste in glass-like blocks and entombing it at Yucca Mountan is a good technical answer, but Nevadans arent cheering about it. Regardless, taking care of this waste that is identifiable, concentrated, and produced at regular intervals is much easier than taking care of than waste in gaseous/particulate form, continuously produced, to the tune of thousands of tons per year.

Thermal pollution from solar power: Production of PV cells is very energy intensive (most of the energy used to produce them comes from--wait for it . . . fossil fuelsl. Yippee!). It takes approx 5 years of use before the current generation of PV cells generate enough energy to "pay back" the energy used in their manufacture So, there's thermal pollution with solar as well. Of course, the nuclear plants also consume energy in thier construction and the production of fuel--but I don't have figures on that.

Decomissioning of nuclear plants is a problem. There's one proposal to change our entire method of building the plants that woud address this and some other concerns: Instead of building each plant from a unique set of plans, we should build the "guts" of the reactors in a few centralized location, as you woud build a ship. Then, transort these to each location, where the ancilary stuff is connected. At the end of the servce life, disconnect and dispose of the unitary reactor component and plug in the model that has replaced it. Advantages: easier disposal (no site disassembly of "hot" components) and better safety/reliabilty through standardization. The French have a very good nuclear power program, and have just a few standardized designs. Their joke to a US visitor: "In France, we have 300 kinds of cheese and one type of nuclear reactor. In the US, it is just the opposite."

Now, let's talk about the advantages of breeder reactors in reducing fuel costs and greenhouse gasses . . . (Incoming!)

 

[Nords]

of course there is the small problem of what to do with the waste, which has a half-life in thousands of years.  The best solution that has been come up with so far is to bury it and hope that the burial site is geologically stable and that future centuries will retain records of where it is.
Also, the cost of decommissioning these things is very high, and they only have a 25-30 year life.  Most just sit there not decommisioned (terrorist targets?), a nice fiscal present to future generations.
When proponents say they are cheap, they conveniently forget these factors.
Aside from the waste issues, however, they are much easier on air quality.  But like all power generation except solar and hydro, they create thermal pollution due to the fact that they require a temperature differential to work.  All they really are is nuclear-powered boilers.

We've learned a lot about nuclear design in the last 50 years, and the PBR plants have far less waste & activated components than their PWR predecessors...

 

[bosco]

The safest place to put high level waste is in dry storage at Yucca Mountain, where it can be heavily guarded.

We are talking about half-lives in thousands of years. Much longer than the half-life of any country or empire and those who serve it as guards. At least thus far in human history. Although Americans may just be arrogant enough to believe that they are the exception.

For the record, I am an engineer and I'd rather have a nuke plant near my house than a coal-burner. But I do think that the larger issues also need to be part of the discussion and these issues transcend nationalities, generations, and even millenia.

 

[samclem]

We are talking about half-lives in thousands of years. Much longer than the half-life of any country or empire and those who serve it as guards. At least thus far in human history. Although Americans may just be arrogant enough to believe that they are the exception.

For the record, I am an engineer and I'd rather have a nuke plant near my house than a coal-burner. But I do think that the larger issues also need to be part of the discussion and these issues transcend nationalities, generations, and even millenia.

Well, this American hopes we'll be the exception. And I hope Canada is still there, too.

We know where Stonehenge is, and it has been there awhile. I think it is ironic that folks who claim that mankind is changing _________ (fill in the blank--the rainforest, the Grand Canyon, the balance of gases in the atmosphere) forever and irrevocably find no inconsistency in claiming that mankind is incapable of deliberately marking one site forever and irrevocably to be avoided for a few millenia.

If folks following us can't figure this out on their own, we've got more serious problems as a species.

 

[bosco]

I apologize for my inflammatory comment about Americans (for the record, I hold US citizenship).

However, I stand by my statement that it is not realistic to produce toxic substances that last thousands of years, and then assert that one's government--ANY government, can be counted on to keep it secure.