[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Stan Rhodes]

Yes, nuclear fuel is depletable, but the rest of Michel's criticism is
ill-informed.  Good nuclear technology has been around for decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

All modern reactors use a passively safe fuel setup, for obvious reasons.
Here's a bit about the IFR project, and how they ran a coolant test before
Chernobyl had a cooling catastrophe:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Loans are not subsidies, but as with any lobby, there's plenty of chance for
sweet deals.  All industries are hyping themselves to get loans.  At least
nuclear has shown itself to be viable.  Quite recently, "renewable" energy
industries, along with nuclear, all came together to ask Obama to speed up
loans:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-ask-obama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/

Companies have been attempting to navigate the fear and red tape to find
smaller solutions, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/10/10greenwire-company-calls-new-small-nuclear-reactor-a-game-45123.html

The "40 years of uranium left" Tomas mentioned may be a fair guess (I
honestly don't know--I've read similar numbers), but obviously there are a
lot of variables.  For example: are the countries with the reactors legally
allowed to reprocess and use the U-235 fuel in question?  If not, you throw
away a lot of potential energy as waste.  In the US, we don't reprocess
fuel.  Obviously, we should (the other nuclear powers do).  40 years
reliable and powerful emission-free generation is wonderful compared to all
other power sources right now.

Ryan's energy summary seems fair.  I don't share Ryan's enthusiasm about
OTEC, part because I only know the basics about it, and part because land is
a much gentler mistress than sea.  Regardless, unreasonable fear about
nuclear power certainly qualifies as a pitfall of the past and the present,
but I hope that pitfall does not remain.

-- Stan

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Nuclear is a really really bad alternative, it's not economical, it's
> depletable, it sets up humanity with a huge and probably unsolvable
> pollution problem, and, accidents WILL happen. All it will take is one
> accident and the current industry driven hype for huge government subsidies
> will disappear again.
>
> Let's focus on renewables and not be sidetracked,
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Michel:
>>
>> The US is a fair model of a future world:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif
>>
>> Transportation will decrease, but it will not remain carbon-based.  The
>> only serious alternative is electric.  Hydrogen will be a chunk, but not
>> much.  Hybrid is a transition technology.
>>
>> Local consumers in most places cannot access wind or solar in reasonable
>> quantities to make personal production realistic or economical.
>>
>> I think small solar is a 3% at best sort of solution.  Centralized solar
>> turning turbines with hot air, etc. is more realistic.  Centralized power is
>> needed for industry and transportation and those aren't going away.  Yes,
>> there will be efficiencies and savings, but there will also be growth.
>> People in the undeveloped world are not going to agree to be poor while the
>> West gets to be rich with lights, heat/AC, mobility, shipping, intensive
>> mining and mineral use, etc.
>>
>> Nuclear has a huge future role.  It has to.  People who argue otherwise
>> are simply hurting the planet--killing it.  We need power.  Nuclear is going
>> to be the main source (period.)  We should fight to minimize it wherever we
>> can, but it is the main source.
>>
>> We need mostly decentralized medium scale distribution grids with medium
>> scale production resources that are sustainable and non-carbon.  That means
>> hydrogen to me.  Ocean energy can aid, but it isn't a real answer so far.
>> OTEC is the obvious vehicle to hydrogen--as is geo-thermal.  Iceland will be
>> rich one day when it uses its geo-thermal assets to make liquid hydrogen and
>> ship it around the world to hydro plants that fuel small and medium sized
>> coastal developments.  Everyone can be rich by building and deploying deep
>> ocean OTEC.  The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria,
>> Ethiopia/Somalia, India, Central America, the Caribbean--all obvious winners
>> with OTEC/hydrogen.
>>
>> It has been positively criminal that hydrogen and means of production
>> haven't been pushed forward more vigorously.  Solar I see as a non-starter
>> that will be a minor player--it is too small to produce hydrogen and it is
>> too variable to be a realistic developed power source on its own.  The sun
>> is the answer, but you need energy storage--warm water gives you that...and
>> we've got plenty of it.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090610/c6456343/attachment.html>