Whenever the topic of renewable energy comes up, someone is sure to say something like "Ah yes, these renewable sources are all very well, but they can't generate baseload power. We need nuclear/carbon sequestration/to ignore this global warming foolishness."
Such people have not thought about what they are saying. We have less than a century of nuclear fuel, even assuming we use it thoroughly and safely and find a good spot for the waste (an argument for another day). The startup and teardown will take a while, too. We have a bit more coal - a few hundred years - and some gas; this assumes we ignore this global warming foolishness or sequester the CO2.
After that, if we can't find something renewable, all those things that just can't get along without baseload power will stop. If we don't have the tech to replace it, the time to do the research is now - while we still have baseload power, and all the other resources we are using up at a cracking pace. When we're running a subsistence economy and scrabbling to stay alive (which is apparently what happens without BASELOAD POWER!), we will not have time to do basic research.
The replacement might be better solar, or really good batteries to smooth out peaks, or hydrogen fusion, or zero-point energy, or whatever. Maybe we work out how to do things in ways that don't need baseload power. Fission power, however, is not it. Coal is not it, global warming or not.
When you see one of these authors, just mentally replace the letter with "we're all doomed!". And think about whether you want to argue for fixing the problem, or relax in the knowledge that it won't happen in your lifetime.
I think humans are smarter than that, if the lack of choice is pointed out to them enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No, there's a difference between proven reserves and actual reserves. Prospectors stop prospecting when the supply of ore is greater than what will be used in their lifetimes. At current usage, the world's known uranium reserves producible at less than US$60 per pound of U3O8 will last 85 years. But geologic data show that the supply is over 600 years. At higher prices, the supply is even greater. With advanced fuel cycles, the proven reserves at $60/lb will last over 2500 years.[source]. Besides that, there's three times as much thorium as uranium.
The solution isn't as elusive as some people think. We can do the electricity part with existing technology: renewables backed up with nuclear, plus greater efficiency. Motor fuels are a trickier problem, but from here it's plain that we'll need a lot of hydrogen and energy in the form of electricity or steam. These needs are all the more reason to build nuclear plants; when they're not supplying backup electricity they can generate motor fuels.
Interesting. My basic point (we *will* need renewable baseload power eventually) is unchanged, although a a couple of orders of magnitude in fuel supply gives us a lot more breathing room than I thought. I'm a lot more confident we can do that, and on that timescale nuclear makes much more sense as an intermediate.
Post a Comment