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

[Michel Bauwens]

some further info from scientists on why nuclear is a really bad idea:

- http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/secureenergy.pdf

- http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/storm_Van_Leeuwen_presentation.pdf

rebuttal of the 'tobacco science' of the world nuclear industry:
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090611/85e136cb/attachment.html>