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

Thu Jun 11 22:05:59 CEST 2009

I agree, we should minimize nuclear.  Ruling it out seems improbably...quite
possibly impossible.  I agree with Stan it is safe but I also agree
accidents will likely happen.  Waste is a major issue.  There are no easy
outs on this one.

I think it is good for the radicals to protest and for the corporations to
produce and self-regulate in the absence of government wisdom.

I find hydroelectric extremely problematic as I do nuclear.  I see no way
around either of them.  If the world drops in total joules produces, that
drop will come with huge human suffering and much social collapse.  It is
not a time for theatrics left or right.  Of course that is exactly when we
get the most theatrics both left and right.

Ryan Lanham

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> My last mail on the subject, this is a good summary, summarizing the
> previous technical documents:
>
> An excellent article on why nuclear energy is not the solution to
> global warming OR the coming world energy crisis – from the Australian
>
> Financial Review!
>
> http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html
>
> Apparently the author of the article has a book coming out:
>
>
> David Fleming's - "The Lean Economy"
>
> Full reproduction at http://act-peakoil.org/pipermail/peakoil-announce/2005-June/000032.html
>
>
>
>  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/20090611/2cc49792/attachment-0001.html>